National Care Standards Commission

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the way in which the National Care Standards Commission performs its duties is satisfactory.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am satisfied with the performance of the National Care Standards Commission, and with its progress to date.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord may find himself in a rather lonely position. Would he, generally speaking, encourage a situation where preference and priority are given to those within the National Health Service who might sometimes make people feel better as opposed to the host of others who will do no such thing? If people go around laying down the law, they should make clear their authority for doing so and that the rule is quite clear, is known, is relevant and is necessary. In the case I brought to the notice of the Minister, is he aware that a small operating theatre used for many years for minor surgery carried out with a local anaesthetic is suddenly upgraded and told it must adopt quite different standards and have two to three feet added to the size of the premises for no purpose at all at a cost of £60,000? Of course, the people who give such instructions do not care about the money.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord will be glad to know that I am not entirely isolated in my view as to the progress made by the National Care Standards Commission. I believe that many observers who have seen it in operation over the past few months believe that it is making a sound start. I agree with the noble Lord that those who are to be regulated should know under what law they are being regulated, that they should know, on the basis of the regulations and the national minimum standards, what is expected, and that the whole process should be transparent.
	As regards the substantive issue, I have asked the National Care Standards Commission to look at the specific case raised by the noble Lord. Clearly, I cannot comment further. The National Care Standards Commission seeks to ensure that standards are of a high quality in order to ensure that the public interest is served. But I accept that it needs to adopt a common-sense and proportionate approach to the inspection and regulation process. I do not disagree at all with the noble Lord about that.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, how does the Minister defend the Government's decision announced last Friday that various tasks in relation to care homes that were supposed to come under the aegis of the Criminal Records Bureau will be indefinitely suspended, including the listing of those who have harmed vulnerable adults? The decision has been announced because of the chaos at CRB. What action will the Government take to put matters right?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, some of the challenges facing the CRB have been well documented in this House. I do not think that I need to go over them again. The National Care Standards Commission has stated that staff may be appointed on the basis of a self-declaration concerning any criminal record subject to satisfactory completion of other relevant checks such as the POCA register. Staff must then be properly supervised and not work alone. It seems to me, in view of the CRB difficulties, that the commission has made the proportionate response for which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, asked.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the National Care Standards Commission cannot do its job effectively because, as with so much else in the Department of Health, the Government get involved in the tiniest details such as what the inspector should do about the size of doors in care homes? Is there any possibility that we shall hear in the Queen's Speech next week that Her Majesty's Government will forswear micro-management?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness will surely know that I cannot possibly anticipate the Queen's Speech. Of course, we do not want to micro-manage the health service or the care system. That is why we introduced our policy of shifting the balance of power, why 75 per cent of the budget of the NHS will, from 2004, be spent by primary care trusts and why we are developing our ideas for the establishment of foundation trusts. Having set national standards for the NHS that the previous government never, ever set, we are in a position where we can decentralise the service much more than the previous administration ever did.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, are the Government doing anything to replace the number of care homes that are now being shut as they cannot meet the present standards?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we must be cautious as regards believing everything that is said in relation to cuts in the number of beds due to the standards being set by the commission. The net loss of care homes over the past four years is 19,000, not the much larger figures often mentioned. The average national occupancy rate is around 91 per cent. I do not ignore the fact that there are problems within the care home sector. That is why we have encouraged local authorities to review the fee structure. I hope that over the next few years as more resources go into personal social services that will lead to secure and stable relationships between local authorities and the care home sector. I also make the point that the whole purpose of setting up the commission was to ensure high standards for the public.

Private Finance Initiative

Lord McCarthy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proportion of private finance initiative deals completed since 1997 have been:
	(i) examined by the National Audit Office;
	(ii) found to provide equal or better value for money than their appropriate public sector comparator.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, from April 1997 until July 2002, some 412 private finance initiative (PFI) contracts have been signed. These are listed on the Office of Government Commerce website. These statistics are updated periodically. The next update will follow publication of the official PFI statistics which are reported to Parliament twice each year.
	I understand that the National Audit Office has issued some 24 reports on the PFI and these are listed on the NAO website and can be found in the Library of the House. Government policy is that all PFI deals are assessed against the public sector comparator where one is required as part of the assessment of their value for money. Projects will proceed only if individual accounting officers are content that they provide equal or better value for money than the alternative methods of procurement.

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am bound to press that Answer a little. The Minister said that 412 private finance initiative contracts have been signed and that 24 were checked up on. That is less than 5 per cent. What about all the others? How are we to know when they are examined—if they are examined—whether they will constitute better value than the traditional way of financing these projects? How will the others be examined? The Minister said that these projects proceed only when they pass the better value test. However, the reports of the National Audit Office do not say that. Will the Government produce rather more sophisticated long-term evaluations of the PFI?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that there were 24 National Audit Office reports. Some of those reports cover much more than one private finance initiative. One of them, for example, is a survey of 120 of them. A figure of rather more than 5 per cent is involved.
	The NAO does not report to the Government. Its value for money studies certainly include the public sector comparator as a test. However, it says,
	"non-financial factors, such as the contractual incentives . . . to deliver on time and budget",
	are also of importance. I am afraid that the situation is not as simple as my noble friend Lord McCarthy would like to think.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Government said that their treatment of those items in the national accounts conforms with all accounting rules. Is the Minister aware that the executives at Enron said much the same? They had cleverly used the rules to hide the true extent of their liabilities. Are not the Government doing exactly the same to understate their liabilities by £100 billion?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government had no incentive whatever to try to take items off any balance sheet, and we do not. The criterion for PFI projects is value for money. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is aware of the joint statement of 24th October from the NAO and the Office for National Statistics. They said that these,
	"are not ... alternative ways of looking at the same issue",
	but,
	"fundamentally different activities undertaken for distinct purposes and using different criteria".
	That is why there is no question of any concealment.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, in terms of value for money, major concern is now being expressed about the PPP for London Underground? Some £400 million has been spent on consultants. Will the Minister take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the London Underground official who was quoted earlier this week as saying that this extraordinary sum is a mere drop in the ocean?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not recognise the £400 million figure that has, I agree, been widely quoted. We suspect that any such calculation is likely to include the cost of London Underground staff and advisers who would have to be employed irrespective of which programme for the regeneration of London Underground is undertaken.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister said that the criterion was value for money. Is not the implication of that statement that in all of these cases, public money is available as an alternative to funds raised through the private sector? Will he clarify—this point has become increasingly important in view of the straitened situation that will face the Government—how many projects would not have gone ahead unless they had been conducted under a private finance initiative?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two responses to that. First, we must make it clear that PFIs are not being undertaken, as they were under the previous government, as an alternative to public investment. Public investment in all of these activities has increased under this Government; it is continuing to increase and is planned to increase. Those are not alternatives. Secondly, I do not know whether it is appropriate to say that public finance is "available", as the noble Lord, Lord King, suggested. However, we are not in any danger of breaching either European rules—because, as is known, our debt has decreased from 44 per cent of GDP to 30 per cent of GDP since we came into office—or our own rules, in relation to which we now take proper account of investment and amortise it over the life of the asset.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, will my noble friend consider organising a short seminar for the House so that we can understand the difference between PPPs and PFIs, which might in turn help to raise awareness throughout the House?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have been accused of being incomprehensible—

Noble Lords: Never!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, by my noble friend Lord Barnett, no less. It is certainly true that a great deal of questioning on these matters is ill founded.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, if the £400 million figure is disputed by the Minister, will he tell us precisely what the figure should be?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no precise figure. This is an ongoing process. You can make up figures as you wish.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said, "You can"; I did not say, "We can".

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I was pleased to hear that the Government have no interest in concealment. That is news to those on these Benches. I shall not ask the Minister to agree that the next Pre-Budget Report will show rapidly rising levels of public debt, because I know that even if he agreed with me, he would find a clever way of not doing so. I ask him to commit in that Pre-Budget Report to giving a comprehensive statement of the Government's liabilities, including those under PFI, whether or not they have persuaded the ONS to score them off the Government's balance sheet.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, framed her question was a clever way of avoiding quite accusing me of concealment. I suspect that it was. I shall not anticipate the Pre-Budget Report in any way.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the Minister sets up—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are already in the 16th minute.

Zimbabwe

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to allegations of political manipulation of food aid in Zimbabwe.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a fundamental principle of all humanitarian assistance and agencies working in Zimbabwe that humanitarian aid is targeted on the basis of need alone. We deplore the blatant use of food for political gain in the recent Insiza by-election and the obstruction of the work of some non-governmental organisations, which appears to be politically motivated. Aid has been suspended where there have been credible reports of abuse.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that there is no shortage of food aid to Zimbabwe? Tonnes of grain lie rotting at the Breitbridge border post and in Durban because of the monopoly of the grain marketing board. Is she further aware that that board is headed by Air Marshal Shiri, who was responsible for the massacre of thousands of Matabele 20 years ago and is now systematically starving people and then supplying food in order to manipulate the electorate and enable Mugabe to cling to power?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. There is food aid that could be got to many starving people in Zimbabwe. A frightening statistic is that by the end of this year we believe that 7 million people—that is, half of the population of Zimbabwe—will be in need of food assistance. The monopoly of the grain marketing board means that DfID does not have control over distribution through the marketing board. Where we do have control—that is, through the World Food Programme and NGOs—we monitor the situation very carefully. Where abuse is evident, we stop the aid.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is now overwhelming evidence in Zimbabwe of partisan distribution of food aid and that the ZANU-PF militia is using starvation as a political tool? Is she also aware of growing concerns in Matabeleland of another wave of genocide?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, we are very much aware of the point raised by the noble Lord today and in our debate last Friday. He makes the point well and does so rightly. As he knows, ZANU-PF seized 3 tonnes of grain from the World Food Programme, as a result of which the WFP had to suspend distribution. We are aware of what is going on. Where we have control and are in touch, as donors, with NGOs and through our relationship with the World Food Programme, we do everything we can to ensure that the poor people of Zimbabwe are looked after.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, at times of such famine and such distress, it is usually the women and children who suffer disproportionately? Can my noble friend tell the House whether any specific actions have been taken in order to ease their burden?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I believe that the whole House will agree that DfID's record in Zimbabwe has been very strong. A year ago, when it saw the humanitarian crisis that was developing, DfID put into place a £2 million supplementary feeding programme which meets the needs of some of the children, pregnant women and nursing mothers so that at least they have a meal a day.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware of reports of Hutus from the Democratic Republic of Congo being trained in Zimbabwe in what one might call "advanced military techniques"? Secondly, given that the Minister has pointed out that DfID's major weapon is to refuse food aid where there is evidence of clear political manoeuvring in its distribution, is there any possibility that, by approaching NePAD or the other southern African countries—Mozambique, Angola, South Africa and so on—we can get an African group to beg the Government of Zimbabwe to allow the food to be properly distributed?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, because of her great experience in this area the noble Baroness will know that the agenda of the SADC/EU meeting, which my noble friend Lady Amos is attending at the moment, includes not only political issues in Zimbabwe but also the question of how we shall overcome the impending humanitarian crisis in the whole of southern Africa. That is very much part of the SADC/EU agenda.

Lord Judd: My Lords, My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who were closely identified with the Zimbabwean struggle for liberation when it was based in Mozambique feel nothing but dismay at the way some people have shanghaied power for their own interests and are indulging in corruption and allowing themselves to be led by greed at the expense of the people as a whole? Does she accept that strong support exists for the Government in their determination to see that, whatever is done in response to the awful things that are happening in Zimbabwe, the ordinary, innocent people will not suffer? Does she also accept the need for maximum co-operation in the strategy between government and humanitarian, non-governmental organisations, which have a very special role to play?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The whole strategy of the Government has been to isolate the corrupt regime but to support as much as possible the people of Zimbabwe.

Lord Blaker: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have another important Question and we are in the 23rd minute.

Paul Burrell Prosecution

Lord Goodhart: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will review the circumstances surrounding the prosecution of Paul Burrell and report to Parliament.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, a full statement was made by the prosecution in court last Friday and the facts of the case are already known. I have placed a copy of that statement in the Libraries of both Houses. The Crown Prosecution Service will be considering carefully the lessons of what has happened. But, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has stated, there is no need for an inquiry. It is important to recognise that this was a unique set of circumstances.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be well aware that this case has aroused great public concern. Does he not feel that the best way to allay that concern would be to conduct as soon as possible a full and speedy investigation of the facts surrounding the case and to publish a report? Does he agree that many questions are not answered by the statement made by the prosecution and that they need to be answered? They include: when and by whom was the decision to prosecute made; was that decision kept under regular review once it had been taken; were the DPP or the Attorney-General involved in the review process and, if so, when; did the prosecution at any stage try to claim public interest immunity and, if so, for what material; and was the Crown Prosecution Service put under undue pressure by the police to proceed with the prosecution?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a large number of questions. I shall deal with those which are most important. First, he asked whether the case was kept under review. The answer is: absolutely. Leading counsel was instructed and in this case, as in any other, the prospects of success were kept under review by counsel and by the CPS. The noble Lord asked about the PII issue. There was never any question in my mind of withholding disclosure of the information and yet continuing with the prosecution, and no attempt was made to do so. No Minister was asked to give a PII certificate or to sign one; a draft certificate was not ever prepared; and nor was any consideration given by anyone to preparing such a certificate to place before the judge. That is not an issue. The judge agreed to postpone the disclosure of information until further inquiries had been carried out and a fuller picture obtained so as to enable properly informed decisions to be made, in particular, as to the future conduct of the trial.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why did not the police ask the Queen about the detail of the conversation with Burrell? Was my noble and learned friend consulted by the DPP prior to the decision to pull the case?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in my belief, neither the prosecution nor the police are to be criticised in any way for not approaching Her Majesty. The fact is that, in a detailed 39-page statement served by Mr Burrell on the police as a response to their questions, no mention was made of any meeting with Her Majesty. Earlier this year, he served a defence case statement, which is supposed to set out his general defence to identify what further things the prosecution should disclose. He gave an account of a meeting but did not indicate that he had told Her Majesty about this matter. So far as concerns my role, I was not asked to advise. I did not give a view as to whether the case should continue. I was kept informed, as I am in relation to high-profile cases, by a brief report provided to me on a monthly basis.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, as the other Lord Carlisle, QC, in this House, perhaps I may thank my namesake for the most welcome and substantial publicity that he has achieved for us both. But, on a serious note, perhaps I may put to the Attorney-General that the simple answer to the theories of conspiracy in this case is for him to accept, as I believe he does, and to state that this was merely a classic example of a case which, under full exposure of cross-examination in the Crown Court, collapsed, and collapsed to the extent that the prosecution felt it improper to continue.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his new, second, career. I agree with what he said. This was an entirely proper way to proceed. The information having come to light, even though Mr Burrell had not mentioned it himself, it was proper for the prosecution to consider it, take it into account and take the decision as independent prosecutors. Leading counsel did so and it would not be proper to continue with the case.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, if there was no application for public interest immunity under the accepted procedure, what was the prosecutor doing locked together with the judge for a period of time? Under what law, rule or practice was that permissible? What were they discussing? Was it social arrangements?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the prosecutor believed that it was right, and so did the judge because she agreed with it, to postpone disclosure in the public interest while further inquiries and a decision were being made as to the future conduct of the action. I believe it is right to describe that technically as a public interest immunity application. I do not believe that it is what most of us would think of as a public interest immunity application—that is, an attempt to keep back the evidence but continue with the trial. As I said, there was no question in my mind of keeping back that information and continuing with the trial.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend say what precedents there are for the defence counsel not to have been included in the discussion that took place in this case?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, there are many precedents for that. The judge was satisfied that what was taking place was proper. One such occasion is the making of a public interest immunity application.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General explain to the House whether there was ever any hard evidence that Mr Burrell had sold or intended to sell or dispose of for gain any of the items in question? If not, why was the prosecution brought?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, clearly evidence of sale is not necessary in theft cases. Independent lawyers and independent leading counsel considered that there was proper evidence to proceed without evidence that property was ever sold. The principal plank of the case was that Mr Burrell had retained property for four years without apparently telling anyone that he had done so.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Whitty will repeat a Statement being made in the other place on the response to foot and mouth inquiry reports.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Amendments to Standing Order 40 are intended to give effect to our decision on 24th July to meet on Thursdays at 11 a.m. and to take Starred Questions at 3 p.m. Most of the other amendments were proposed by the Procedure Committee in the third and fifth reports. The amendment to Standing Order 47 implements the recommendation that Peers in charge of Bills should move a Motion after Second Reading to determine the type of Committee to which the Bill will be referred. The others are drafting amendments to bring Standing Orders up to date. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that a new edition of Standing Orders, incorporating those amendments, should they be approved, will be published for the start of the new Session.
	Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:Standing Order 37 (Short and time-limited debates) In paragraphs (1) and (2), leave out "Short Debate" and insert "balloted debate". Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) In paragraph (1), at end insert ", except on Thursdays, when business other than Unstarred Questions may be entered before Starred Questions". In paragraph (3), at beginning insert "Subject to paragraph (1),". In paragraph (3), leave out "except Starred Questions". In paragraph (6) leave out "on a draft order laid under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 or". In paragraph (7), leave out ", (5) and (6)" and insert "to (6A)". Standing Order 47 (Commitment of bills)
	Leave out paragraph (1) and insert—
	"(1) After second reading, Bills are committed to a committee on a motion in the name of the Lord in charge of the Bill (except that in case of a Bill of Supply or a Bill certified by the Speaker as a Money Bill the House may order that the Bill be not committed.)"
	Standing Order 51 (Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills)
	In paragraph (6), leave out "Northern Ireland Act 1974" and insert "Northern Ireland Act 2000".
	Standing Order 64 (Sessional Committees)
	Leave out "Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee" and insert
	"Constitution Committee
	Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
	Economic Affairs Committee"
	Leave out "European Communities Committee" and insert "European Union Committee".
	Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments)
	For Standing Order 72(1) substitute:
	"72.—(1) No Motion for a resolution of the House to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until:
	(a) except in the case of any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2000, or a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, or a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
	(b) in the case of a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; and
	(c) in the case of a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
	Provided that the report is laid
	(i) in the case of a draft remedial order, within 60 days of the laying of the draft order or
	(ii) in the case of an order not approved in draft, within 119 days of making the order, such periods to be calculated in the manner prescribed by Schedule 2 to the Act; and
	(d) in the case of a Hybrid Instrument, the proceedings under Private Business Standing Order 216 or 216A have been terminated."
	Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments)
	In paragraph (1) leave out "Northern Ireland Act 1974" and insert "Northern Ireland Act 2000".
	In paragraph (1) leave out "and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994".
	In paragraph (1) after "Human Rights Act 1998" insert "and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act".—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to; it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them with the amendment to Standing Order 51, and that the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be printed as amended. (HL Paper 189)

Commonwealth Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as your Lordships will have seen, there are three orders relating to Northern Ireland. It may be convenient if I deal with the first distinctly and with the second and third together.
	The Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 contains a series of measures designed to give employees rights in terms of their employment. It includes the right to two weeks' paid paternity leave, either when the child is born or around the time when a child is placed for adoption; a new right to 26 weeks' paid and 26 weeks' unpaid adoption leave; amendments to existing rights during (and after) maternity leave; and a duty on employers to give serious consideration to requests from parents of young children to work flexible hours.
	Extensive public consultation has taken place and there has been widespread public support. In another form, this measure was about to enter the penultimate stage of its passage through the Assembly. Before suspension the Northern Ireland Assembly voted on 7th October to approve all of its provisions. This order simply gives rights to those who are employed in Northern Ireland, and they are the same as those available in England and Wales.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward this order. It is sad that it has to be brought to this House and that it has not been dealt with in the way intended previously. I support the order.

Lord Laird: My Lords, on behalf of my Ulster Unionist colleagues, I am happy to give a broad welcome to the order before us today. As a Unionist, my reaction tends to be supportive when legislation from Great Britain is extended to Northern Ireland. However, my inclination is generally even more positive when the legislation appears to be beneficial to people in the Province.
	As noble Lords may be aware, the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 is almost identical to the Employment Bill which was being debated by the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to its unfortunate suspension. That Bill was considered by the Assembly Employment and Learning Committee that subsequently published a report on its findings. The committee's views were generally welcoming, particularly in light of the Bill's provisions on the extension of maternity leave, new rights on adoption and paternity leave and pay, and an obligation on employers to consider seriously requests from parents of young children to work flexible hours.
	However, there were also some reservations about the Bill and, having been in touch with Dr Esmond Birnie, the Ulster Unionist chairman of the committee, I know that many of those reservations continue to exist now that the legislation is in the form of an order: for example, there is a concern with regard to the widening of eligibility under the terms of the order, which is a worry that I share. There seems to me to be little point in bringing forward positive legislation such as that before your Lordships this afternoon unless we can ensure that as many people as possible are enabled to benefit from it.
	One suggestion put forward by some committee members in an effort to improve the situation was that the word "worker" should replace the word "employee" in the legislation. It was argued that this amendment could well have made an additional 5 per cent more people become eligible for the benefits. However, I see that that advice has been ignored in the order and I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could tell me the reasoning for that.
	The committee also expressed concerns about the extension of the right to request flexible working to those with other caring responsibilities, such as elderly parents, as well as the removal of the age barrier of six years, above which working parents of children would not be permitted to request flexible working hours from their employers. Similarly, committee members also came to the view that the right to request flexible working by parents of disabled children should not be limited by the age restriction of 18.
	On a final point, the Employment Bill was expected to come into operation in February 2003. However, there were concerns raised that a "gap period" potentially existed whereby mothers who are expected to give birth from the week beginning 6 April 2003 could actually give birth as soon as late-November 2002. In cases such as those, when a birth expected after 6 April 2003 occurs prior to the regulations coming into operation, the parents would be excluded from the statutory entitlements included in the legislation.
	Having read the order before us today, I see that its provisions will come into operation on such day or days as the Government may by order appoint. Is the Minister yet in a position to indicate when that might be?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not in a position to deal with that last point. As soon as I am I shall write, as I hope I always do, to the noble Lord, placing a copy in the Library.
	On his point about premature birth, that would obtain in most circumstances of employee protection. On the phraseology in the order, my understanding is that it mirrors the legislation that obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom and it certainly continues the phraseology that has been used, as far as I am aware, in the pre-existing legislation.
	I am able to give the noble Lord more up-to-date information. We intend to make the necessary regulations as soon as possible after the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order receives Royal Assent. I believe that is a more satisfactory answer than the one I was able to give a moment ago.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I beg to move the second order standing in my name on the Order Paper. As I indicated a moment or two ago, there are two orders, which, for the convenience of the House, should be taken together.
	The first order is the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order. Your Lordships will be aware that when I repeated Dr Reid's Statement we had a certain amount of discussion about the events that led to the suspension, and indeed the decision to suspend, the Assembly in Northern Ireland.
	It was of course a matter of regret to all of us because the devolved institutions were making a significant difference to life in Northern Ireland. As I indicated, I think on 15th October, we concluded ultimately that suspension was the least bad alternative.
	One of the significant problems, which your Lordships identified on the last occasion when we discussed this question, is a lack of trust on all sides of the community. There were concerns as to whether there was a proper commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.
	I want to reiterate that this is not a suspension of the agreement, simply a suspension of the Assembly. We felt obliged to suspend the devolved institutions, the Assembly and the Executive. We shall continue, as a government, to do our very best to implement the rest of the agreement. Plainly, we have to ensure that good government is available to those of our fellow citizens who live in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships know that two further members have been attached for the time being to the Northern Ireland Office ministerial team—my honourable friends Angela Smith and Ian Pearson. The Minister of State and the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have taken on new responsibilities. There is a good deal of work to be done. The new Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Mr Murphy, is meeting the Irish Government today.
	The order almost speaks for itself. It is dictated by the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 2000. This means that the Assembly has lost its law-making powers, as we saw a moment or two ago; neither it nor its committees may meet; and Ministers in the devolved administration cease to hold office, although on restoration of devolved government they may resume them. Executive powers generally will be exercised by the Northern Ireland departments, subject to the direction and control of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There is a power to legislate by Order in Council, as your Lordships noticed a few moments ago.
	These arrangements will be familiar to those of your Lordships who know Northern Ireland well. They do not significantly differ from the powers of direct rule that, regrettably, existed from 1974 to 1999.
	There was a substantial legislative programme before the Assembly. Some of the legislation it was considering was quite urgent. We shall bring forward some Orders in Council reflecting such Assembly Bills.
	During the earlier period of direct rule, it was frequently the practice to supplement the scrutiny given to draft Orders in Council by making them available, in advance of their being laid here, for public consultation. We propose, in so far as we possibly can, to continue that practice, which I hope your Lordships will agree is a sound and proper one. We shall aim to look to 12 weeks' consultation, which I hope your Lordships will agree is a reasonable period. There will need, as before, to be exceptions, such as technical financial orders and social security parity measures. There may be occasions of urgency, where such consultation will not be practical.
	I know that your Lordships are anxiously concerned about these matters. I have trespassed a little on your Lordships' time to explain the background.
	The next item is the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2002. This is much more technical. It provides that during suspension of the devolved Assembly expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising the functions of the Assembly Commission and in relation to members' remuneration and pensions is to be defrayed from the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland rather than from moneys provided by Parliament.
	Under devolution, the Assembly Commission is funded from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. In a period of suspension the Northern Ireland Act 2000 provides that it should be funded by moneys provided by Parliament. That has the legal consequence of requiring such funds to come from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund. During the period of suspension in 2000, it was found that the accounting arrangements which had to be put in place between the NIO and the Assembly to abide by that requirement were, first, administratively cumbersome and, secondly, wasteful of resource. Therefore, for this period of suspension, to simplify matters and to introduce this purely technical adjustment, your Lordship's assent is asked for.
	I stress that no one loses from this. It simply means that Northern Ireland public expenditure remains exactly as it was. I hope that those explanations are helpful. I commend these orders to the House.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for setting out the terms of these orders before us today, in particular the second one, with which I have no argument. Indeed, I have little argument with what he said about the first one either.
	Since devolution was established in 1999, this is sadly the fourth occasion on which we have had suspension. It takes away, once again, from the people of Northern Ireland their Executive, their Assembly and all the institutions that flow from the Belfast agreement.
	This is deeply regrettable because I believe that, notwithstanding the interruptions that have taken place, the events of the past three years have once again underlined the benefits of devolved government for the people of Northern Ireland. It is without doubt—as I have said before in this place—a far better alternative than direct rule from Westminster.
	The people of Northern Ireland deserve an administration formed by local politicians and directly accountable to local politicians for the decisions they make. So devolution on a widely inclusive basis should remain our objective.
	However, I should put on record that we, the Official Opposition, would not have started from here—as a Tipperary man once said. Faced with the circumstances that have led to his order, we would have preferred the Government to have delivered on their promise on 24th July and tabled an exclusion Motion before the Northern Ireland Assembly. Had that failed, they should not have hesitated to take the power here at Westminster to exclude any party in breach of its obligations from the Executive. That would have ensured that the guilty were punished. Instead, the Government took the decision to suspend and punished the innocent along with the guilty.
	Of course having gone down that route, we shall support the Government's efforts to find a way through the current impasse provided that their approach is balanced. In that context, I welcome the new Secretary of State, Mr Paul Murphy, to his post and wish him the very best. We cannot afford a repetition of the policy of one-sided concessions to republicanism that has characterised the Government's approach since the agreement was made four-and-a-half years ago.
	The key ingredient in all of this, and the ingredient that is in such short supply—as Mr Trimble has said on many occasions—is trust. The reasons for that are all too apparent and lie in the consistent refusal of republicans to fulfil their obligations under the agreement.
	Most of us in your Lordships' House are all too aware of the charge sheet that has built up against republicans over the past year. However, none of these activities is compatible with the part of the Belfast agreement that calls for a commitment to,
	"exclusively democratic and peaceful means".
	In fact, they are totally at odds with the definition of the ceasefire set out by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign in May 1998.
	These breaches come on top of other aspects of the process—for example, the Patten report, which, as Mr Trimble said in the other place, does not itself comply with the agreement, and the one-sided concessions to republicans—that have done so much to undermine mainstream, moderate unionist confidence in the agreement and the process. In short, people in Northern Ireland are acutely aware that, in implementing the agreement, the Government have been anything but even-handed. It is worth noting that when people say that the concessions are all one way, they are not necessarily always thinking of the agreement; many of them do not know the details of the agreement anyway. The resulting lack of trust between all parties to the agreement and the crisis that came to a head last month meant that the institutions were unsustainable.
	I am the first to admit that a great deal of the violence of recent months has been caused by so-called loyalists. I condemn loyalist violence unequivocally and without reservation. It must be tackled with the full force of the law and its perpetrators put behind bars, where they belong. Your Lordships will be aware that this is not the first time I have said this from the Dispatch Box. Yet, unlike the republicans, none of the loyalist groups is attached to a political party that has been—or is likely to be—represented in the Northern Ireland Executive. Sinn Fein, on the other hand, had, until suspension, two Ministers in the Executive while remaining inextricably linked to an armed, active and fully capable terrorist organisation—PIRA. That is a crucial distinction.
	The focus of our comments is fixed on republican transgressions of the agreement because it is republicans who have created the crisis in the institutions and in the political process in Northern Ireland. It is with republicans that the primary responsibility lies for getting the process back on track and creating the circumstances in which devolution can be restored.
	One thing is certain: there can be no more fudges or taking republicans on trust. That has now happened three times, and three times that trust has been abused by the republican movement. Republicans cannot go on riding two horses. It is no good Martin McGuinness saying one day that his personal war is over, and, the following day, the IRA breaking off contact with General de Chastelain. Such behaviour simply does not wash. They must commit themselves unequivocally to exclusively democratic politics. That means IRA disbandment and IRA decommissioning, which, this time, must be done in a manner designed, in the IRA's words of 6th May, 2000, to "ensure maximum public confidence". It means that, for the republican movement—Sinn Fein and the IRA—the war must be over. It is worth noting that that has been clearly spelt out by all the pro-agreement parties in Northern Ireland, by the Dublin Government, by the Government of the United States of America and by the British Government. All concerned believe it to be the way, except for Sinn Fein, which is notably silent on the matter.
	We enter another period of direct rule. The people of Northern Ireland today have no confidence in the ability of Her Majesty's Government to solve the crisis. The Government appear to have no clear plan or strategy for returning the Province to devolved administration. The Government must quickly regain the confidence of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland in the peace process if they are to succeed in their task and hold elections to Stormont on the due date. Primary responsibility for the impasse rests with republicans. But a great deal hangs on the Government too. Crucially, they must end the misguided and counter-productive policy of endless one-sided concessions to republicans, including the further reforms to policing that the Government plan to propose this autumn. Those reforms would allow convicted terrorists to sit as independent members of district policing partnerships. Ulster needs a police force that is capable of putting the terrorists on the run; not a police service that the terrorists themselves run.
	We need real leadership from the Government, not just some strong words from the Prime Minister. We need to see determination to act—at long last—if republicans do not fulfil their obligations. That is how the Prime Minister's recent speech in Belfast will be judged: not by what he said, but by what he does. In their discussions with the parties, the Government must negotiate an overall package that deals with each of the outstanding elements of the agreement that still require implementation. It means that all parties must be aware of their obligations and what they must deliver, and it means clear sanctions and penalties for breaches and non-compliance.
	As the fact of the order confirms, the process is in deep trouble. However, as my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear in Londonderry three weeks ago—I was there, with other noble Lords—we also have an opportunity to get it right. Crucially, if we are to stem the flow of confidence away from the agreement, we must return to the principles that the people of Northern Ireland voted for in the referendum of May 1998. Above all, violence and the cancer of paramilitarism throughout Northern Ireland must end. Otherwise, I fear, we will find that we are back here in six months' time to renew the order and that, once again, the temporary expedient of direct rule will assume a permanence that nobody—not least the people of Northern Ireland or myself—wants. I support the order.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, when last we discussed the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 15th October, I predicted that it was likely to last for a long period. Nothing that has happened in the past three weeks inclines me to alter that forecast. The interim has, it is true, offered some signs for optimism. The Prime Minister's speech went down reasonably well in the circumstances, and Mr Gerry Adams's responses to it have been relatively measured. Against those two reasons for mild optimism, there have been several setbacks to progress. The IRA formally severed links with General de Chastelain; loyalist paramilitary thugs continue with the most appalling punishment attacks, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, observed; and the dissension within Official Unionism has delivered some rebuffs to its leader, Mr David Trimble. Of those bad omens, the most depressing, in a way, is the last. It reveals that the attitude of the Ulster Unionist Party is hardening and is likely to be more negative.
	On 15th October, I remarked that, if progress towards the restoration of the Assembly were not made and elections to it were postponed beyond May, the Assembly would probably not be restored in the foreseeable future. In that event, I said, a London-Dublin condominium would provide the de facto government of Northern Ireland and, increasingly, the de jure government. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, misunderstood my words and said that I was calling for a condominium: I certainly was not. I said that, if the negotiations failed, such a condominium would be the inevitable result. I also said that the elections scheduled for May should be held whatever the state of the negotiations. The people's voice should be the final arbitrator, if all else fails. If that means that the outcome is that the DUP and Sinn Fein become the two main parties in the Assembly, so be it.
	The Minister stated on 15th October that the May elections stood. I am worried by the use of the verb "to stand" in that context; it is a rather weak one. As some of your Lordships may have experienced, someone can be standing one day and legless the next. The Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to elections in May, if not before. Can the Minister give an undertaking that they will take place, come what may?
	Finally, I return to the issue of how much longer the Government will agree to the continuation of salaries and other perquisites of Members of the Assembly, which is of relevance to the modification Order before the House. When I suggested stopping payment for the duration of the suspension, I was upbraided by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, who said that the dedication of all politicians in Northern Ireland was such that they could not be bought. I agree with that: I was not seeking to buy them in any way. On the contrary, I am sure that they would not want to be paid while the Assembly is suspended. When will the Government announce a date for considering salary payments? It should be before Parliament rises for Christmas.
	Reluctantly, we accept the need for the orders, and we support their passage.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, the orders before us today have been brought forward as a direct result of the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This should be—and no doubt is—a matter of regret to us all. However, that suspension need not have happened.
	Last week we learnt from Mr Mark Durkan, the leader of the SDLP and former Deputy First Minister, that the Prime Minister had told him there were grounds to exclude Sinn Fein from the Northern Ireland Executive, thus avoiding any need for suspension. Indeed, in an interview with BBC Radio Ulster's "Inside Politics" programme, Mr Durkan claimed that Mr Blair also tried and failed to persuade him to support a motion in the Assembly to this end.
	Your Lordships will recall the background to the current crisis in Northern Ireland. In the wake of alleged republican involvement in gun running from Florida, in training FARC rebels in Colombia, in a break-in at Castlereagh police station and a litany of violent and criminal activities in various locations across Northern Ireland, we then discovered that Sinn Fein/IRA had been involved in a long-running and sophisticated spying operation directed against the Northern Ireland Office including the private office of the Secretary of State himself.
	As soon as the spy ring was uncovered, it quickly became clear that Sinn Fein/IRA's place at the heart of the government of Northern Ireland was untenable. However, it should not have been left to the then First Minister, Mr David Trimble, together with his Ulster Unionist colleagues in the Assembly to, in effect, force the British Government's hand.
	Following a meeting at Downing Street, Mr Trimble let it be known that he had told the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State, Dr John Reid, that they had a week to bring forward a motion for debate by the Assembly to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. A failure to do so would lead to the resignation of Mr Trimble and his Ulster Unionist Ministers. As we now know, the Government decided to take a very different route by suspending the Assembly and the other institutions created as a result of the Belfast agreement. If ever there was a case of punishing the innocent along with the guilty, this was it.
	Not only did the Government decide to act contrary to the advice of Ulster Unionists by deciding to take the option of suspension; they acted against the wishes of the Alliance Party which also argued that Sinn Fein Ministers should be excluded from office. This is why Mr Durkan's comments are so important. In revealing that Mr Blair himself had been contemplating following this course of action, Mr Durkan in effect confirmed that the suspension of devolution in Northern Ireland came about at the behest of the SDLP. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal can expand on this in his reply.
	The noble and learned Lord may also wish to reflect on the reasons why, given that the SDLP was refusing to support an exclusion motion, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, alluded, the Government did not decide to bring forward legislation giving themselves the power to exclude Sinn Fein from the Executive. Since we now know that Mr Blair believed there were grounds for exclusion, was it a neglect of responsibility—or perhaps even a loss of nerve—which led him not to do so?
	The SDLP has long argued for the resurrection of a power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. But, given such an executive and the chance to keep it in existence, it could not summon the moral courage to do so. I find that difficult to fathom. Much is made—quite rightly, given that they are one and the same—of Sinn Fein's links with the IRA. However, perhaps not so much is made of the SDLP's relationship with Sinn Fein.
	I believe that it is time for us—and, more importantly, the SDLP itself—to re-evaluate those relationships. The consequence of the SDLP's decision to press for and achieve the suspension of the institutions is that it has presented the IRA with a veto on its future. Surely that is an irresponsible way for a democratic political party to behave.
	It is important that devolved government is restored to Northern Ireland as soon as practicable. Devolution was a great success. People liked it and they wanted it to continue. The obvious question for us now is how it might be restored. The idea of a further act of IRA decommissioning has been suggested, but I am afraid that that would no longer be all that is required; indeed it falls far short. Something of much greater significance is needed. We need to see an end to the IRA.
	Last week Mr Martin McGuinness said publicly that his "war with the British is over". That statement is to be welcomed. But we need to hear that the war of every other IRA member is over and we need to see evidence that this is the case. In other words, the IRA itself must be stood down.
	In concluding my remarks it would be remiss if I did not refer to the increasingly barbaric acts of violence being carried out by so-called loyalists. Noble Lords will, like me, have read with horror over the weekend about the crucifixion of a young Catholic man by loyalists in Belfast. Those of us who have lived in Northern Ireland all our lives and have been involved in Northern Ireland politics for most of our lives would tend to regard ourselves as fairly shock-proof. But every so often something happens which makes us realise that we are not as shock-proof as we thought. That barbaric act was such an incident.
	Loyalist paramilitaries must be dealt with, but they must be dealt with by the legitimate forces of law and order, not by the illegitimate force of the IRA; in other words, the activities of loyalists should not be used by the IRA as a reason for continuing its existence.
	I want to see devolution restored to Northern Ireland. But this time it must be for keeps. It must be given permanence. I regret that these orders had to be brought forward and I greatly hope that, when devolved government returns to the Province, we will never again have to debate their like in this House.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, these Benches support the orders placed before us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. We stress what has been said already: the return of direct rule is a regrettable necessity, but we recognise that any immediately available alternative would have been worse.
	It is important in this atmosphere—I use that word advisedly—to keep a sense of perspective. It is important to note that what has happened is not surprising, although regrettable. No one who knows Northern Ireland could ever have thought that the Good Friday agreement would lead immediately to an Easter in which the solution of all problems was somehow realised.
	I quote from a recent publication's jacket cover a remark by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the Archbishop of Armagh: "Reconciliation cannot be enforced". Meanwhile, we need to do everything we can to develop institutions, conventions and opportunities that promote confidence-building and enable all these heart-rending places to have a voice that is heard.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, no one in your Lordships' House would take objection to the presentation of the order. It is deeply regrettable; we could preface our remarks by saying, "Here we go again". This is the fourth time we have seen the transfer of powers to Northern Ireland and back here again.
	We are facing a tremendous difficulty in Northern Ireland. Unless we see the realities and unrealities of the situation, we may never be in the position of trying to bring about a resolution of the conflict. I wanted to see devolution in Northern Ireland. I supported devolution while at all times at the back of my mind I realised that built into the Good Friday agreement were all the reasons why it should fail. The agreement was built on a Catholic and Protestant head count; a nationalist and a Unionist head count. Once sectarianism had been built into the agreement, all the MLAs and politicians who were elected to the Stormont Assembly would have to pay attention to what type of votes were sending them there.
	Politicians in Northern Ireland are like politicians everywhere; they have to take into account all the reasons why a certain section of the electorate votes for them. In Northern Ireland, it has ever been so since the 1920 partition. One section of the community voted against partition and will never accept it; the other section of the community voted for it and want it to remain.
	Have we done anything by way of the Good Friday agreement to do away with that formidable division? I do not think that we have. The one thing which the Unionists allegedly obtained—it has been continuously referred to since the Good Friday agreement—is that the Irish Government took Articles 2 and 3 out of their constitution and substituted for them the principle of consent. The Unionists were told that nothing could change in Northern Ireland unless they gave consent to it.
	That did not have to be written into the agreement and it was no great favour or concession given to the Unionists because Northern Ireland could never be united without the consent of the Unionists, whether it was written down on paper or not. Although the Dublin Government gave up their claim to the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland under Articles 2 and 3, that should never have been implemented either, outside a civil war in Ireland or the Irish Republic sending up troops into Northern Ireland. So there were two so-called concessions—one to the Unionists and one to Irish nationalism—and neither of them were worth the paper on which they were written.
	However, during the past two or three years we have seen various Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have to say that some of them were carrying out a difficult and unique job in the circumstances and were being very successful. That goes for the DUP Ministers, who allegedly did not recognise the Assembly. Some of them were the best Ministers we had in Northern Ireland. I find it difficult but I must say in all honesty that I believe that Peter Robinson was one of the best Ministers we had. The other Members for Derry were also good Ministers. Whether I dislike and sometimes detest the activities of Sinn Fein, I think their Ministers were acting responsibly too.
	All those people were in place because they had a mandate from the Northern Ireland electorate. Sinn Fein and the SDLP would say, "You can't exclude us. No matter our inextricable links with the IRA, so many thousands of people voted for us". Under the arrangements that were made for the elections, they were entitled to have their places within the ministry.
	The Unionist party—which Unionist party are we talking about? There are three or four unionist parties in Northern Ireland which disagree in a family way with each other, but they are under one tribe. So we have two tribes in Northern Ireland; some of them may be disparate and fight among themselves but there is the Catholic nationalist tribe.
	I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he says about the conversation which allegedly took place with the Leader of the SDLP, the Deputy First Minister, who gained the impression that the Prime Minister, in circumstances in which he could rely on the support of the SDLP, would have been prepared to exclude Sinn Fein from the Assembly because of its links with the IRA. From what I heard, the Leader of the SDLP said that he could not give him that guarantee.
	Therefore, however much the SDLP might disagree with Sinn Fein and its links with terrorist organisations, there was no way that it would vote for its exclusion from the Assembly. So there we have it in clear black and white. There will always be an alliance between the nationalists—there is no way that any section of nationalism will run away from Sinn Fein. The same thing happens on the other side of the fence.
	I was sorry that the former Northern Ireland Secretary, Dr John Reid, left when he did. In a short conversation I had with him in the company of other noble Lords, I sincerely felt that he had a grasp of the Northern Ireland situation. He represented a Scottish constituency and was aware of the sectarian divisions that had taken place in Scotland. I had intended to have further discussions with him but within a week it was announced that he had left Northern Ireland. He recognised the serious divisions that exist.
	Now we are in the position of asking: do we bring back the Assembly? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, and I do not believe that the Assembly will come back in a short time. I believe that it is very much on the back burner. The reason that it is on the back burner is that the elected representatives, the MLAs in Northern Ireland, cannot find agreement to bring about the restoration of the Assembly.
	The mandate which the MLA representatives have had in Northern Ireland was due to run out on 1st May next year. Do we have that election or are we frightened of the results? Do we say that Sinn Fein may become the majority nationalist party and that Democratic Unionists may become the majority Unionist party and that we will not abide by that conclusion of the electorate?
	Where does that put us? Where does that put the argument for democracy in Northern Ireland? Democracy is allegedly brought about by the will of the people and if a majority of the nationalist population in Northern Ireland want to vote for Sinn Fein and a majority of the Unionists want to vote for the Democratic Unionist Party, who are we to say that they should not do so? That would be the will of the electorate. Therefore, if we say that we are not going to have elections, we are saying, sotto voce, that we are not going to have democracy. That is what we are saying.
	I realise the tremendous difficulty which now faces this Government. I say that even though the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, may disagree with me, I speak from experience. I have had nearly 40 years in politics in Stormont, in local government and the rest. If those MLAs are kept on pay in Northern Ireland, if they are given recognition as public representatives and the longer they are able to go to Stormont and use whatever facilities are available, they will not mind how long the suspension takes because they are being given all the credit for being elected representatives. I went through that myself. I know exactly how I felt and I know exactly how they feel. It means that there is no impetus, no pushing by those MLAs to do what they can to bring about a quick resolution of the conflict. So do we have an election in May next year? Even though I might be frightened of the outcome, I believe that there should be an election next year, whatever the will of the Northern Ireland electorate.
	Over the years, I have said to many of my colleagues that it is a tragedy that there is no Labour Party in Northern Ireland. At the moment, there is the SDLP, but that set of initials does not mean very much to anyone with a socialist conscience. As I said to Dr John Reid when I last spoke to him, if a candidate with a socialist conscience and Labour principles were to stand for election to the Assembly—whenever that election may take place—some wise people might depart from their tribes and vote for him and elect him as a Labour candidate. He would then go to Stormont and people there would ask him, "Are you a nationalist or a unionist?" He would say, "I am neither. I am a Labour man". They would then say, "Well, you cannot come in here. We do not allow Labour people in here. We allow only nationalists or unionists". Does not that show how in-built are the divisions? We cannot have there the kind of normal politics that are recognised in this part of the world.
	I am glad that the Lord Privy Seal has retained the Northern Ireland portfolio because he is readily approachable and understands Northern Ireland. I hope to have further discussions with him.
	No one can object to this order, but if we are to bring about the restoration of the Assembly it must be in a way in which there is no danger of it falling apart again. It must be built constructively and steadily so that there is no danger of your Lordships having to come back to this issue again.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to decommissioning. That is no longer an issue in Northern Ireland. No one ever believed in decommissioning anyway. Someone must have said that someone had spoken to General de Chastelain and then he said that he saw a gun, but the Unionist Party never believed that any significant amount of arms had been decommissioned. The latest IRA gesture of saying, "We are going away in a huff now. You took away our Assembly so we are not going to talk to General de Chastelain", did not have any effect at all. The world has progressed far since decommissioning became an issue.
	So decommissioning is no longer an issue, but all kinds of other structures must be thought of, brought about and voted on. They must be there and put into place with the assurance that when the Northern Ireland Assembly again comes into operation it will not be brought down on a sectarian headcount.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, like many others who wish to see the full implementation of the Belfast agreement by all parties to it, I regret the renewed suspension of power-sharing. When this happened the Government promoted two of their Back-Bench Members to fill the ministerial vacancies. In doing so, they missed an opportunity to continue the principle of power-sharing, which might have been done by appointing two new Ministers capable of representing all traditions, including the two main political and religious ones, in Northern Ireland. That might have happened by making use of the flexibility available through the membership of your Lordships' House.
	Power-sharing remains, however, in one important sector—namely, in the make-up of the police authority. I trust that this will long continue because it is so important for the acceptance of essential policing by all sections of the population. As policing is not and never was a devolved matter, I suggest that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to ensure the continued representation of all major strands of opinion in that authority. I urge all political parties to support that aim.
	As to the Assembly itself, I follow the general line of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. Would the Government consider recalling the Assembly for one specific purpose even while power-sharing remains in temporary abeyance—that is, to draft a Bill of Rights tailor-made for the needs of Northern Ireland? It is remarkable that this subject is one on which all political parties in Northern Ireland have long been agreed, at least in principle. It is not enough to say that the United Kingdom Human Rights Act applies in Northern Ireland. This already has to be supplemented and applied in detail by a whole range of ombudsmen, advisory and regulatory commissions and so on. The whole subject deserves to be drawn together in a comprehensive measure, which should also set out the duties and responsibilities of citizens.
	I commend this idea to your Lordships and to the Government as something which could usefully employ the energies of the elected Members of the Assembly and, at the same time, prove a catalyst to wider political agreement and inter-communal trust.
	I also urge the Government not to forget the Civic Forum. Surely this consultative body could examine the performance of the many statutory boards and quangos in Northern Ireland, some of which, at least, could become more user friendly.
	In short, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Ministers should not feel themselves too fettered by direct rule. On the contrary, they should use imagination to preserve all possible strands of power-sharing, public dialogue and consensus.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I find myself in warm agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on two points. I deeply regret the departure of Dr John Reid—although I welcome his successor, naturally, and I hope that the change will work well. I also agree with the noble Lord very strongly that where the decommissioning matters is on the streets of Northern Ireland. The need to disarm the paramilitaries is an issue which it is logical to consider now while we are thinking of what to do next and, I hope, of what bargains may be struck with Sinn Fein/IRA.
	It is evident that there will be bargains. The Minister, Jane Kennedy, was reported in the press as saying in Dublin last week that the Government, rightly, remain fully committed to the peace process and to the idea of delivering the outstanding commitments in the agreement, not in stages but all at once. I know that that is an echo of a sentence in the Prime Minister's speech, but I find it disturbing. I very much hope that no commitments are being made to deliver all at once until we have seen some action from Sinn Fein/IRA.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the debate is somewhat depressing. I am sorry to say that what has happened was prophesied by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, some months ago when we debated the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, and by other noble Lords from Northern Ireland. I, for one, do not welcome the order to suspend devolution in Northern Ireland.
	There have been some interesting comments in the debate. I followed with interest the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to human rights. I ask him to study the Belfast agreement in further detail. As one who worked for several years towards reaching that agreement, I must remind the noble Lord that there were specifically five requirements for initiatives on human rights in the Republic of Ireland. It is time that he studied what progress has been made by the Republic of Ireland in complying with the requirements of the Belfast agreement in relation to human rights.
	The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, was clearer today in his attitude towards a condominium. I thank him for making it perfectly clear that he is opposed—and strongly opposed—to a condominium of joint rule by the Dublin government and Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland. That is progress from what we heard last time. I remind the House that careless talk about a condominium creates problems within Northern Ireland. If ever there were a condominium proposed—as seemed to be the impression in the last debate—it could lead to civil war and nothing less. I remind noble Lords that when the Conservative government—and it was the Conservative government—imposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland providing for much less than a condominium, it led to tremendous civil strife in Northern Ireland and had to be removed. It was as a result of the influence of the present Government during the talks at Stormont and the conclusions of the Belfast agreement which brought that agreement to an end. So let us have no careless talk about a condominium.
	The salaries of Members of the Assembly at Stormont have been reduced. It is all very easy to say, "Oh, forget about them—give them no salary." But they were elected until May next year. They are still operating from their offices, representing their constituents. I had a telephone call this morning from a MLA asking me to assist with a visa for two people in the city of Armagh. If you take away their salaries and destroy the elected representation in Northern Ireland of all the political parties—the Ulster Unionists, DUP, Alliance, SDLP and the various groups that represent paramilitary organisations—you are actually undermining the infrastructure of democracy in Northern Ireland and what degree of experience and leadership there is within the political parties. I do not think that it helps democracy in Northern Ireland simply to take the easy way out and say, "Do away with their salaries. Do away with all locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland". That is too pessimistic an approach for what may happen in Northern Ireland next year.
	Devolution has been a great success. Our employment has increased. Our population has passed 1.7 million people. We now have a lower unemployment level in Northern Ireland, believe it or not, than the average in the European Union and a lower unemployment level than in many regions of Great Britain. There has not been net emigration, which I knew for most of my lifetime, but net immigration. More people are coming into Northern Ireland now than leaving it.
	Investment has increased; tourism has increased. So even devolution has a successful side to its performance. But it has fallen, as prophesied, for two reasons. I am sorry to have to mention the second one. The first one is well known—the fact that Sinn Fein-IRA are inextricably linked and that a spy ring was discovered within the offices of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and Sinn Fein-IRA got their hands on secret documents and messages between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States—and many other issues as well. That is what happened.
	But the Government also helped to bring down power sharing and the Belfast agreement because the policy of Her Majesty's Government in recent years has been to diminish the Britishness of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. That was not part of the Belfast agreement. The agreement firmly said that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and that that status could not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. But then the Government proceeded to remove the Union flag from buildings. We pointed out to the Lord Privy Seal—I fear that he did not accept the seriousness of it at the time—that in removing the Crown coat of arms from Crown court houses, as he proposed and pushed through this House against our opposition, he was further alienating unionist opinion against the Belfast agreement. So the agreement lost support.
	The Patten report has been mentioned. It did not comply with the Belfast agreement. It was contrary to some of the issues in the agreement. For example, it did not suggest that there should be equality of opportunity. That is what the Belfast agreement said. What did the Patten report say? It said that everyone had to be treated equally: nationalists and unionists must be equal. That is different from equality of opportunity.
	I suspect that later this month Her Majesty's Government will be bringing forward new legislation in relation to policing in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government are listening carefully because if the new legislation involves further compromises towards Sinn Fein-IRA, that will help to bring down the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the one last remaining power-sharing operation in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned. I hope that if any new legislation is forthcoming, it will also address the needs and requests of the majority Ulster Unionist community.
	I ask the Lord Privy Seal to let us know what is happening to the North-South Ministerial Council. As he knows, it is linked to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Since the Northern Ireland Assembly has now been suspended, I assume that the North-South Ministerial Council will also be suspended in the interim.
	Like other noble Lords, I welcome the appointment of Mr. Paul Murphy as our new Secretary of State. We worked with him very closely in preparing the Belfast agreement, and he is very welcome back. I hope that once again he concentrates on the issue of investment into Northern Ireland. It was disappointing to read yesterday that although Sir Reg Empey—our Minister for investment in Northern Ireland—at an Irish-US business summit in Washington last September had succeeded in getting the US Health and Human Services Secretary, Mr. Tommy Thompson, to agree to come to both the Republic and Northern Ireland to discuss investment, that visit is now only going ahead in the Republic. The United States, on the recommendation of the US consul general in Belfast, decided not to proceed with the visit to Northern Ireland. That kind of negative thing is damaging to our economy. I am sorry to see the US consul general in Belfast party to that decision.
	I return to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Rogan—suspension as against exclusion of Sinn Fein-IRA. The Ulster Unionists, the DUP, the Alliance Party and now apparently the Prime Minister were in favour of exclusion. Exclusion would have meant devolution continuing in Northern Ireland if the SDLP were not simply the yes men for Sinn Fein. That appears to be the case because the leader of the SDLP, Mr. Mark Durkan, announced at his party conference on Saturday that the Prime Minister was suggesting—I assume in a private conversation at 10 Downing Street but he let it out of the bag—the idea of exclusion but that the SDLP was not prepared to support such a proposal. That means that the SDLP in essence was in favour of Sinn Fein remaining in the Executive in Northern Ireland.
	My last point is in relation to an election in May next year. In a letter from the Privy Council last week, I was told that 20 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland have not registered this year for the next election. Already 20 per cent are not on the electoral register. That shows a decline in an interest in democracy in Northern Ireland. People are tired of all the in-fighting and disappointments. How can you have public interest in an election to a body that does not exist? I fail to see how we can proceed with an election in May next year unless in advance of that date the power-sharing Executive has been restored to Stormont. If we were to ask the people of Northern Ireland to vote in an Assembly election next year and tell them, "Well, there is no Assembly—just vote and see what happens in the years ahead", we would get a very poor response.
	Let us definitely have an election next May, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, suggested. I would like to have it. But, first of all, let us ensure that we have something there that we are going to elect people to attend and participate in.
	In the meantime, I would not be as pessimistic as some noble Lords. There have been advances in Northern Ireland over the past few years. I am still optimistic that something may happen next spring, after January, that will make it possible for the power-sharing Assembly to be brought back into operation. And if it is not then, as an Ulster Unionist, I am very happy to continue with direct British rule of Northern Ireland from London.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I, too, regret yet another failure, although it was inevitable. It is inevitable that this kind of procedure will continue. In this remembrance season, perhaps we should be mindful of the old military maxim:
	"Always exploit success, never reinforce a failure".
	I hope, therefore, that we can concentrate on exploiting the success so manifest, for example, in Wales, which has its devolved administration—not legislature. In 1979 a previous government produced such a plan for Northern Ireland. They were told by the Foreign Office and the Dublin Government jointly that "it was not enough", to quote the words of a former Prime Minister. But those two elements—the Foreign Office and a foreign government—should have known that the choice of "not enough" and "nothing" were one and the same thing. If you say that something is "not enough", the alternative is nothing at all. And that has been, and will continue to be, the case.
	After four years of experiments, surely the time has come to adopt the Welsh blueprint, which, if necessary, could be adapted as confidence develops. I am quite certain that those steps would bring nearer an assembly with the necessary modifications in time for its election next year.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. My thoughts on the present circumstances have been well and truly articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, so I shall not repeat what he said. I shall speak neither with the benefit of hindsight, because that is not particularly helpful, nor with the pessimism that has been expressed by some speakers today.
	I wish to exact a very specific promise from the Government in terms of what will happen over the next four, five, or six months. Whatever may be felt in terms of the shortcomings of the Belfast agreement, I am not in the privileged position of being able to disown it; indeed, I was part of that process. I have been part of public life in Northern Ireland for 30 years—20 years of which I spent as an elected representative. Hence, there is no point in pretending that mistakes have not been made, or that, if they have been made, I had nothing to do with them.
	The reality is that we made an agreement in 1998 that provided an opportunity for people to move through a transitional process. No one who was realistic thought that it was something that would happen overnight. It was meant to be a transitional process, designed to give people who had been on the very extremes of violence the opportunity to move into a democratic mode, or to give support to those who represented them within a democratic mode.
	My criticism of government in the past four years is that they have forgotten the obligation on elected members to adhere to "exclusively peaceful" means, which were the most important words written into the agreement. Immediately Sinn Fein members were elected, both Adams and McGuinness said—though they have now changed this—"Well, of course we never were in the IRA". But we knew that they were. We know that the IRA and Sinn Fein are the same. They are not parallel; they are the same organisation. That is the important point. Sinn Fein cannot exist, or fight elections, without the consent of the army council of the IRA. The president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, is a full honorary member of the army council of the IRA. Of course, there are others, but I shall not go into that detail on this occasion.
	Government turned a blind eye to that situation. Government treated the two organisations as though they were separate; and, therefore, Sinn Fein did not have to demonstrate that it was operating by "exclusively peaceful" means. The promise that I want to exact from the Government today is that, from here on, no one will try to hide the reality of the two parts of the same organisation. If government do that, we shall stop having concessions made to one organisation while at the same time the Government say, "Of course, we shall get tough with the other side". If I have to prove my case, I can do so. I simply draw attention to the people who were active as terrorists in Colombia and the role that they played in the electoral processes of Sinn Fein prior to that. Noble Lords will know what I mean.
	If the Government can give us that commitment today, I believe that the people of Northern Ireland will get over the pessimism that has been articulated in the Chamber this afternoon. I am sure that they will do everything that they can to get behind the Government to achieve progress. Short of that—and here I join the pessimists—we are doomed to another failure.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Government really had no choice in the end but to bring forward these measures, and to close down temporarily—I hope, very temporarily—both the Assembly and the Executive. I believe that John Reid was a most excellent Secretary of State. In the event of him being replaced, I can think of no person better than Paul Murphy, with whom I had the privilege to serve for about two-and-a-half years in Northern Ireland when we moved towards the first devolution, to take on that role. Paul Murphy had the respect of all sides, not just on the day that he arrived in Belfast but after having served there for two-and-a-half years. He earned that respect because people knew that he understood the issues and had a very balanced approach towards moving forward. If we are to be optimistic, I believe that Paul Murphy is capable of taking the process further.
	I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who said that the Government treated Sinn Fein and the IRA as separate. That is not true. When I had such responsibilities, I remember constantly using an expression like, "The Government accept that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked". To my knowledge, we have never said, or accepted, that there was a separateness between Sinn Fein and the IRA. It does no service to the Government's efforts to make the peace process work to suggest otherwise.
	The real problem with the present situation is that there will now be a political vacuum. The danger with such a vacuum is that the men of violence tend to try to fill it. The biggest threat at present is not that some of the people who have accepted peace will take up arms, but that the people who have never accepted a peaceful way forward will use the vacuum that currently exists and fill it with violence. That is the real danger.
	The various parties in Northern Ireland, which have been mentioned in today's debate, have a much more limited margin for manoeuvre than has been suggested. I do not believe that it is necessarily fair to make suggestions about what the SDLP could do; nor do I believe that the demands made of the Ulster Unionists over recent months have been realistic. Indeed, people have often demanded of David Trimble more than he could reasonably be expected to deliver. That very limited margin for manoeuvre poses real difficulties for the Secretary of State. However, it has to be accepted as it is inherent in the situation there.
	The pay of members of the legislative Assembly has been mentioned. I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, on the matter. I believe that it would be a mistake to say, "We are going to cut off your pay as an incentive to getting on with the peace process". These people have given up their other careers in order to serve their constituencies across the political spectrum. We should allow them to continue to do that with pay, albeit reduced. If we say that their pay should be stopped and that they should return to their other careers, the peace process will have an even more difficult passage and the period of direct rule will be longer than it ought to be. As I say, I believe that it is right to continue to pay those people.
	There are real difficulties as regards whether the elections should take place. Part of me agrees with the sentiments expressed by the Liberal Democrats; namely, that we should not stop the process. On the other hand, having an election campaign at a time when the political representatives are somewhat neutered as the Assembly has been suspended is rather difficult. It will add an air of artificiality to the process that is not healthy. I am in two minds about that. I would rather leave that decision to the Secretary of State in the light of the circumstances that arise in the early part of next year.
	Finally, there is a success story. We have had a successful Assembly in Northern Ireland for several years. We have had a successful Executive there for several years. Ministers of all parties there have behaved responsibly and have made proper decisions. For God's sake, let us not throw that away.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Glentoran. We on this side of the House very much deplore the continual concessions to nationalists at the expense of loyalists. In our view the Government have taken the easy option of suspension rather than exclusion.
	I refer to the remarks about the relationship between Sinn Fein and the SDLP that have been made by several noble Lords. I very much bear in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that is, that there are two sections in Northern Ireland. I believe that he has often used the word "tribalism". We on this side would like to see the SDLP become a more positive influence in the Province and stand up and be counted.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in his perceptive speech said that the continued violence of the loyalists must not be used as an excuse for the IRA to continue in the same vein. We have questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. What is the Government's strategy? In particular, will the Minister clarify Ms Jane Kennedy's remarks in Dublin which, as my noble friend Lady Park said, suggest that we are to have the implementation of Weston Park almost in one leap? Are we to have elections? The noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Fitt, made perceptive remarks in that regard. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, correctly, he said that the elections should take place to test whether the extremist vote will emerge as we expect.
	In conclusion, the view of this side of the House is that the recreation of trust will require leadership, patience, strength, determination and courage. Noble Lords on all sides of the House very much hope that the Government exhibit those qualities. I am encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as regards the capability and promise of the new Secretary of State. If the Government can deliver the aim that I have mentioned they will certainly have the support of this party.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, for an interesting debate. All noble Lords have made at least one comment with which I agree.
	I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who said that the present situation is a great disappointment. Other noble Lords agreed. It is a disappointment but it is not a terminal catastrophe. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, made some extremely powerful points. He said that the level of unemployment had substantially declined and that the population had increased. He also referred to the good economic outturn. He is right to point out that had those results been brought about in any other part of the United Kingdom they would have led to great rejoicing. That point should not be overlooked. We do Northern Ireland a great disservice by not constantly repeating the points that the noble Lord mentioned.
	I hope that we shall continue on a bipartisan basis. We never departed from that when the previous government were in power. It is extremely important to put party political advantage on one side. I suggest with great respect that as regards the people of Northern Ireland it is deeply irresponsible not to do our utmost to maintain a bipartisan approach.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of breaking the bipartisan agreement. I said that we would support the Government. We welcomed the appointment of the new Secretary of State. However, we reserve the right to be critical of certain tactics that may be used; that is our job.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I accept that entirely. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in my extensive dealings with him both in the Chamber and outside, has ever varied. But I agree with what other noble Lords have said; namely, that sometimes language needs to be considered with great care—I do not address my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—and needs to be used—I refer to places other than this House—with great care and scruple.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to disbandment and decommissioning. I do not know the motive of the IRA in saying that it was withdrawing communications with General de Chastelain. A short time ago I had the great privilege of spending a good deal of time with General de Chastelain and asking his opinions. I simply do not know the tactical basis of what was done. However, I took the trouble to watch the recent programme on Martin McGuinness in which he said that his war with the British state was over. If he meant what he said, it is fairly unambiguous and, I should have thought, is cause for optimism.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked me about the elections, as did other noble Lords. I shall deal with that as a distinct topic. The elections are still set to take place on 1st May 2003. Suspension of the Assembly does not change the fact that elections are set by law for 1st May of next year. I do not want to intrude into private grief between the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Smith of Clifton. I hope that I am far too wise—at least in this context—to get involved in that. However, I can tell noble Lords that today the Secretary of State will announce his determination with regard to salaries and allowances. I do not know what that will be but as soon as that announcement is made, I shall ensure that a copy of it is placed in the Library of this House so that noble Lords will have an early indication of it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked me about the North/South Ministerial Council. It cannot meet at the moment as it is composed of Ministers from the devolved administration and Ministers from the Government of the Irish Republic. There are none of the former, therefore it cannot meet.
	As regards what may have been said in the United States, I have tried to obtain information on that, but I have no knowledge of it, nor does anyone from whom I am able to obtain information.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, mentioned—as, I believe, did others—what was going on in Colombia. I simply remind your Lordships that a trial is about to start there. I believe that it is better if I do not comment on that.
	A number of questions were asked about what the Prime Minister may or may not have said to Mr Durkan in—I use quotation marks, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney—"a private conversation". As I understand it, the Prime Minister's consistent approach has been that there was a range of circumstances, which had to be examined carefully. The Government's conclusion at the end of the day—I adamantly believe that it is the right one—was to go for suspension.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that it is important that devolution should be returned as soon as possible. I could not agree more. That is—to answer the question of another noble Lord—the Government's strategy. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for his support and to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who has frequently assisted me outside the Chamber with his views—he has enormous experience of Northern Ireland. He is right: Dr Reid was an extremely effective and powerful Secretary of State.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs and to other noble Lords who spoke of the qualities of Paul Murphy. I know of those qualities personally. When there was a Conservative government and we were in opposition—it seems a long time ago now—he and I were colleagues on the shadow Northern Ireland team. He is a man of great qualities and he is admired, respected and trusted across the whole community.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised various questions. I agree with him about the importance of the Policing Board. It is essential that it should operate on a cross-community basis. We constantly urge Sinn Fein representatives face to face—I have done so myself—to discharge their obligations and join the Policing Board. I am not entirely without optimism that that may come about. I have no timetable.
	The noble Lord also asked about bringing back the Assembly for one day. To put that in context, noble Lords will remember that the Belfast agreement required the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to draw up proposals for a Bill of Rights to be enacted in Westminster legislation. Broad consultation is continuing. I do not see the virtue of bringing back the Assembly just for one day when in any event—

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I did not mean that that should be done just for one day. I meant that it should be done for long enough to draft a whole Bill; it will be a complicated Bill.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord was speaking metaphorically; I simply went to his point. I understood what he meant, which was that there should be a recall for a specific purpose and none other. My answer remains the same. I do not believe that there would be great virtue in recalling the Assembly for that purpose because in any event we do not know the timetable by which the Human Rights Commission will report on that point.
	As I said, two new Ministers have been appointed. It is essential that the people of Northern Ireland—I say this with great respect because I do not live there—are entitled to have good governance, which, with the present suspension of the Assembly, needs to be discharged by Ministers who have ample time and energy to devote to the problems and difficulties of Northern Ireland. I take the point about the civic forum.
	What my honourable friend Jane Kennedy said was simply a repetition of a section of the Prime Minister's speech. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, said that devolution had been a great success; I agree with him. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for suggesting that one could learn a great deal from the Welsh blueprint. That will be a source of great comfort to our colleagues who make the National Assembly for Wales work.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that he would not exhibit pessimism. I agree. He said that the Government must not try to hide reality; I hope that we do not. My noble friend Lord Dubs fully dealt with that.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked what the Government's strategy was. As I said, it is to work with all due determination—and, of course, with a balanced judgment—towards elections in May and the restoration of devolved government, which I believe all noble Lords want. He also spoke about the necessity of the recreation of trust. That is so, and that is what the Government are determined to do.
	I have dealt with all of the observations of noble Lords because I believe that on such an occasion it is better to deal with points as fully as I can rather than simply to make general remarks.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2002

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Goldsmith: Personal Statement

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a personal statement.
	In answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours this afternoon, I said that I did not give a view as to whether the prosecution case against Mr Burrell should continue. In doing so, I was under the misapprehension that I was being asked about the decision last year to begin a prosecution. In fact, I now realise that I was being asked whether I was consulted on the decision to pull the case. I apologise to the House for that misunderstanding.
	I am anxious to state the correct position as soon as possible. The correct position is as follows. I first learnt about the case shortly after my appointment. The Director of Public Prosecutions had drawn the case to the attention of my predecessor in May last year. Thereafter, the case was included in a list of high-profile cases in respect of which brief reports are provided to Law Officers on a monthly basis. We were not asked for and did not give our views about whether the case should proceed. On Tuesday last week, the Crown Prosecution Service and counsel drew my attention to the new information that had been disclosed by the Palace to the police. Naturally, my views were sought on how to proceed in the light of that development, and I gave them. But in the end, as I made plain should be the case, the decision was made by the Crown Prosecution Service following further consideration and having taken leading counsel's advice.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett on the Government's response to the FMD inquiry reports. The Statement is as follows:
	"I wish to make a Statement on the Government's response to the foot and mouth disease inquiry reports. That response is being published today.
	"When the inquiry reports were published in July I told the House that I accepted that mistakes had been made and that I was determined to learn the lessons of what happened in 2001. The independent inquiry process that concluded in July has enabled us to do that, and to move forward quickly to implement their recommendations. We are indebted to Sir Brian Follett and Dr Iain Anderson, and I pay tribute again to them and to their teams for producing such thorough and useful reports so quickly. The Government accept virtually all the detailed recommendations of the Lessons to be Learned report, and firmly endorse the lessons which Dr Anderson draws. The recommendations made by the Royal Society will also play a major role in shaping the Government's work in this area. A separate report from the NAO is currently under consideration by the PAC.
	"The Government's response to the inquiries contains a wide range of commitments and actions, including a stronger general framework for emergency preparedness, with special emphasis on response and disease control in an outbreak of animal disease, and work on strengthening disease prevention. Alongside publication of this response today, the latest version of our contingency plans is available on our website for comment and consultation.
	"Inevitably some of this considerable body of work is work in progress, and much requires further development and an open and transparent process of consultation with a wide range of players including the farming industry, the wider rural community and other key players such as the local authorities.
	"Dr Anderson identified three key areas for handling any outbreak: systems, speed of response and the necessity for good science as the basis of that response.
	"As the House may recall from my July Statement, some steps, such as the establishment of a civil contingencies secretariat, have already been taken. From next year it will be supplemented by dedicated contingency planning teams in every region, based in the government offices.
	"Plans are being developed for training and rehearsal of contingency plans together with other players, such as local authorities. In addition, procedures are being drawn up to ramp up organisation, should this be required, including the maintenance of a register of staff willing to serve in an emergency, and their competences and skills.
	"Both inquiries called for a body to provide advice to DEFRA's Chief Scientific Adviser in emergencies and for a review of priorities in animal health research. A science advisory group has been set up, some additional funding for veterinary teaching and research has been identified and the review of priorities is under way. The Government are committed to funding necessary research into animal disease and to increasing spending on that.
	"Work is also under way on how to identify and manage risks as part of DEFRA's own development plans. In particular, a risk assessment report on illegal imports is in preparation and I hope to receive it before the turn of the year. In the meantime, we have secured the agreement of Commissioner Byrne to a ban on personal imports of meat. We have put resources into detection and enforcement, including piloting the use of detector dogs. I can announce today that the Government have agreed that responsibility for anti-smuggling checks on animals, fish, plants and their products, including meat, should be placed under one body—Her Majesty's Customs and Excise—as soon as that can be achieved.
	"However, no import controls can ever be 100 per cent effective. That is why both inquiries emphasised the role that animal movement controls can play in checking the spread of disease. The Government have accepted the advice that the 20-day standstill rules should remain in place until a detailed risk assessment and wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis have been completed.
	"We have commissioned the necessary economic and modelling studies from experts outside DEFRA with the aim of deciding on a proportionate level of controls and, in particular, on whether a movement standstill of 20 days strikes the right balance between the disease-control benefits and the costs on the industry and livestock markets. Emerging findings from those studies should be available at the end of this month to feed into decisions on the shape of movement controls to apply from next February. We expect full and final results in the first half of next year. As the inquiry reports recognise, the farming industry, too, shares responsibility for minimising disease risks and has a crucial role to play, particularly with regard to biosecurity. We shall work closely with the industry in following up the inquiries' recommendations in this area.
	"We also intend to work closely with the industry in developing a comprehensive animal health and welfare strategy, which has been called for by both inquiries and the policy commission. It is important that we share an agreed vision, which must cover protection of public health, animal disease prevention and control, and animal welfare. Informal discussions with stakeholders are already taking place before the launch of a public consultation exercise later in the year across the breadth of the stakeholder community. The strategy will draw on the inquiry reports and will provide a vehicle for implementing many recommendations.
	"We shall also use the consultation on the strategy as a means to discuss with stakeholders the best mechanism to provide regular reports on animal disease preparedness so that the lessons learned as a result of the 2001 outbreak and the recommendations of the inquiries are implemented and help to ensure that the experience of 2001 is never repeated.
	"But the House will want to know what else would be different in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. A national movement ban would be put in place as soon as the first case was confirmed, as my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary announced in the summer when our interim contingency plan was published. Restricted infected areas—blue boxes—would be declared from the start in a minimum 10-kilometre radius around infected farms. But public rights of way would need to be restricted only in a 3-kilometre radius from those farms.
	"International and EU rules are based on the need to eradicate what is an unpleasant as well as a highly infectious disease. Hence, the basic strategy in all FMD-free countries is that, as a first step, animals infected with foot and mouth disease and animals which have been in contact with them have to be culled. But what both inquiries say, and what the Government accept, is that, in some circumstances, additional action may be needed to control an outbreak. In that case, emergency vaccination will form part of the control strategy from the start. That would be emergency vaccination to live, provided of course that scientific and veterinary advice was that that would be the most effective course.
	"The inquiries themselves point out that the use of emergency vaccination to live raises a number of very difficult issues—scientific, logistical and economic. But the Government are committed to tackling those issues, in consultation with interested parties, with the aim of being in a position to trigger an emergency vaccination campaign should the need arise. But the issues are substantial and this process will take some time to complete.
	"That does not mean that wider culling strategies will never again be needed. We must maintain a full armoury of weapons to tackle these diseases; hence our insistence on the flexibility proposed in the Animal Health Bill and in the Lessons to be Learned report to allow for pre-emptive culling so as to enable us to deal with an outbreak more quickly with fewer losses of animals and least disruption to the rural economy.
	"The Government are consulting on a 'decision tree' on FMD control which would set out the factors to be taken into account in deciding the best disease-control strategy for different circumstances. But we have to remember that each outbreak is unique, and we cannot prescribe in detail in advance how best to meet it. There will still be a need for scientific and veterinary judgment at the time.
	"For the longer term, the Royal Society recommended that research was needed on a vaccine that could be used routinely rather than just in an emergency against all strains of FMD and for all species. The Government recognise that that would be desirable as a long-term goal and will encourage international collaboration to that end. But the House will appreciate that we are some considerable way from achieving that.
	"In short, a mere three months after publication of the inquiry reports, the Government are today able not only to respond formally to those reports but to identify a massive programme of work and reform which is under way. Nothing can ever erase the horrors and the tragedies of the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease in the UK. But we can all resolve to establish more effective safeguards and, should those safeguards fail, an even more effective response".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend earlier today. However, I have to ask why the Statement has been delayed until now. Are the Government so totally inept that they were unaware that, until last Monday, your Lordships were still debating the Animal Health Bill on which these reports and their responses directly impinge? Is it not ironic that the Animal Health Bill has passed through its final stage in this House and needs the approval of another place today before it can be passed? Or are the Government totally unscrupulous in holding back necessary information until it is too late for your Lordships to take it into account in considering the Bill that has been before us?
	Whether the Government have been inept, ironic or unscrupulous, I find the timing totally unacceptable. This House knows and appreciates the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He is always courteous, patient and accommodating. It is not him that I am speaking about but the department, which, I believe, has failed this House very badly.
	I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. There is much in it that we welcome. We on these Benches accept many of the central suggestions and recommendations that have been made. In particular, we also want to record our thanks to Professor Iain Anderson and Sir Brian Follett for their very thorough work.
	Perhaps I may highlight the question that has been challenging us throughout the passage of the Animal Health Bill—that is, the question of vaccination and of vaccination to live. Having received the booklet today, I looked back to see what was said. Recommendation 10 states that emergency vaccination should be considered as part of the control strategy from the start of any foot and mouth outbreak. The Minister confirmed that today and we are grateful for that. Recommendation 28 lays aside one of the difficulties that we have been facing—that is, it will be possible to distinguish vaccinated from vaccinated-infected animals. I hope that puts to rest that particular issue.
	We also welcome mention in the Statement that a civil contingencies secretariat will be established. We welcome, in particular, the fact that it will be based in every region and that local input will be taken into account. I hope that designated decisions can be taken at that level. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his response. Presumably local decisions will be made locally and will not have to be taken back to the centre.
	We also welcome the appointment of one body which will be responsible for anti-smuggling checks on imported animals, fish, plants and their products, including meat. As was said, that has been allocated to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I understand from the Statement that that body will be set up as soon as possible. Again, perhaps we may be given an indication as to when it will kick in.
	We also note that a science advisory group has been established. How much will the funding cost; what period will the initial funding cover; and to how many centres will the money be given?
	We welcome the explanation of the 20-day standstill rules. That will be reported on by February next year, but most noble Lords bitterly regret that that issue was not addressed before the Animal Health Bill passed through this House.
	I believe that all noble Lords will be particularly pleased with section nine in the booklet of responses, to which the noble Lord referred. It states that in the future there will be no more mass pyres. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that as it is hugely important.
	We on these Benches, and I suspect those from other parts of the House, are keen to have proper disease controls in place. We worked so hard on the Animal Health Bill to ensure that they are robust. Perhaps in recent debates on the Bill we have fallen out with the Government because we feel that the provisions have bones but not enough flesh, and we have tried to add more flesh to the arguments.
	I draw the attention of the Minister to compensation. In the past it has been borne by the public purse. One finds on page 46 confirmation of rumours of what we knew would happen that the Government are to move away from public purse compensation towards requiring an animal disease insurance to cope with problems that may occur in future. I understand that a group has met three times to discuss animal disease compensation and animal disease levy and insurance options. Can the Minister tell the House more about that?
	The Statement mentions imports, particularly illegal imports. We have expressed extreme concern about legal imports to this country from countries that have disease, particularly foot and mouth disease. Further explanation of that by the Minister would be welcome.
	As I said fairly sharply at the beginning, I am tired of having to respond to matters that have been produced a day late, as in the case of the Animal Health Bill. We were awaiting government amendments so that we could proceed. I believe on all sides of the House that noble Lords want to ensure that the new legislation is robust and workable. It would have been so much better to have had this document available, even a week ago. I question why it has taken three months to produce. Could it not have taken two months and three weeks to produce so that we had a chance?

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister who has worked hard in relation to aspects of the Statement. I also thank Sir Brian Follett and Dr Iain Anderson and their teams for their work on the reports that we are discussing.
	I too find the timing astonishing. I was used to responding to Welsh Statements in the other place with half-an-hour's notice, but to try to respond to this with little notice will be rather more complex. The publication of this document is important. Section 2 mentions the setting up of a civil contingencies secretariat which is extremely important because it was obvious from the start of the outbreak in 2001 that contingency plans were not in place. This will right that wrong.
	Dr Iain Anderson said in his report that there were three key areas: systems, the speed of response, and good science. I want to comment on the systems to which he referred for tackling the outbreak mentioned in the Lessons to be Learned report. Being hands-on in terms of farming, I mention the farming systems. I believe that the farming systems took DEFRA by surprise. DEFRA appeared surprised that they have moved on so much in the past 20 years or so, including the activities of dealers. One needs to study such matters well—perhaps not in the way in which Mao Tse-Tung did by putting bureaucrats on farms, a comment which I see the Minister appreciates—and more in-depth knowledge of farming and farming systems would help a great deal. When a body is appointed to look at the situation, I sincerely hope that there will be adequate input from those with practical farming backgrounds, so that the matter will be treated with in-depth knowledge and so that it can head off certain misunderstandings that have occurred in the middle of outbreaks.
	There is a section on funding for animal health research and on teaching and research. The Minister knows that we took great care to bring that forward in debates on the Animal Health Bill. I am also concerned about the State Veterinary Service and, in my view, the inadequate number of state vets. Had more such vets been in place at the start of the outbreak, matters may have progressed better. In welcoming the increased funding of, in particular, research, I remind the Minister that in 1983 Pirbright had 13 vets, but by 2001 it had only four. I hope that all those wrongs will be put right to ensure that in future we shall have a proper contingency plan for Pirbright so that it can function properly immediately an outbreak occurs.
	I want to refer to a number of other issues. The Statement addresses the issue of imports which is particularly welcome to me. I thank the Minister for appearing to have accepted the amendment on imports and the methods of dealing with it that are in the Bill. I am grateful to him for that.
	Clearly if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is to be the overall organisation, we need to know what extra resources will be required to ensure that it is an effective organisation with personnel and technology that can tackle the matter. As far as I can see, at the moment there is one video and two dogs tackling the problem. I am sure that that will be put right by the organisation, but speed is necessary. That is an important point.
	There is also the vexed matter of animal movement controls that we exhaustively debated on Monday under the 20-day standstill rules. If new rules are to come into effect in February—16 months after the last case of foot and mouth disease—that is a matter for criticism. We need to know whether the Government, as they say in the Statement, will use other methods of movement control following a reduction of the 20 days and it is important to know what kind of controls they will be.
	I know of one case where animals arrive on one farm that is 25 miles from another farm owned by the same farmer, but standstill occurs also on the farm 25 miles away. That kind of situation is a nonsense and at the moment makes farming almost impossible.
	The animal welfare situation is important. The majority of farmers adhere strongly to animal welfare. But I wish that to be pursued in the case of the rotten eggs in the bottom of the barrel, and there are one or two. The whole farming industry should not be criticised for them.
	I am particularly anxious that the National Assembly for Wales and the Farmers Union of Wales are consulted fully on these matters. In terms of the national movement ban, which is immediate when an outbreak occurs—and I welcome that as being sensible—I should like to know what the strategy will be. I would like to know what the parameters will be—for example, a 10-kilometre radius around infected farms—and the whole issue of European Union rules and what impact they may have on this particular Statement.
	I believe that there is a necessary sharing of burdens regarding this matter. In particular, there has to be a sharing between the Government in terms of DEFRA, the scientific community and the farmers. At the moment, the farmers shoulder nearly all the burden. I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us and demonstrate how this can be evened out in the future so that we all share our responsibilities.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords opposite for their comments. I have five minutes in which to reply. As regards vaccination, there is a significant change in approach. People have to understand that it will not replace the culling of diseased animals, animals on the premises and dangerous contacts, which were a significant proportion of the animals killed last time. It is following that that we look at emergency vaccination as a tool. That will require clearing some of the difficulties before we can fully implement it.
	The noble Baroness asked about devolution of decisions. The general strategy will be determined centrally but implemented locally. With a range of tactics available, some decisions will be taken locally. The noble Baroness also asked about Customs and Excise taking over the range of responsibilities for control of illegal imports. Some details need to be sorted out but it is intended that that will take place as rapidly as possible next year.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked about resources. In addition to the resources already allocated for personnel and the experiments to which he referred, the spending review has allocated a total over three years of £25 million. The exact division has yet to be determined, but the bulk will be on control of illegal imports.
	The noble Lord referred to farming systems and the need to engage farmers in the whole process. That was one of the difficulties last time. There has never been a rehearsal involving all the public authorities, let alone farmers. The intention is to bring farmers into that process so that they are familiar with it and so that we are familiar with farming practices.
	As regards the noble Lord's questions about the State Veterinary Service, we will provide adequate funding. The other benefit will be a single line of command with vets, as far as possible, co-located with others. So there would be clear co-ordination of all functions at the regional level.
	In relation to the 20-day standstill, which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord continue to be somewhat critical of—no doubt we shall return to this matter later in the week—the issue of how we have changed the 20-day standstill has not remained the same. We have adapted, in particular, to the autumn standstill. But in order to move to a permanent regime we need the full evidence required of us by the Royal Society and Anderson reports. That will be available in outline by the end of the month—in time, therefore, for us to take some decisions on the next big batch of movements in February next year.
	The noble Baroness spoke about pyres. We shall have a different hierarchy of disposal. Mass pyres will not form part of our disposal, whatever the level of culling.
	As regards research, the noble Baroness asked about the cost of the science advisory group. That is not a significant cost of itself because it consists of key personnel brought together to advise. The substantial expenditure referred to on research is not for the science advisory group. That will be spent in a number of different locations. The science advisory group will primarily be something that can be plugged into the whole control of the disease, but it will be there on a continuous basis before any disease hits us.
	The noble Baroness referred to what she said was the delay in this report. In fact the report has been brought forward to ensure that it can be considered in this Session of Parliament. The reports were made in July. Those noble Lords who demanded a full-scale legalistic public inquiry will recognise that we would not have received the results of that inquiry by now, let alone the government response to that inquiry. We are therefore somewhat ahead of where many noble Lords were urging me to be only a few months ago. We have a detailed inquiry, plus government commitments on organisational change and on resources, plus a whole new approach to the Government's relationship with the farming and other interests involved should we ever be faced with this dreadful disease again.

Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say more about vaccination? The Statement talks about the proposal to trigger an emergency vaccination campaign should the need arise. It refers to the recommendation of the Royal Society that research would lead to a vaccine—presumably a single vaccine—that could be used routinely rather than just in an emergency against all strains of FMD and for all species. I understand that it is called a polyvalent vaccine. How long would it take to produce such a vaccine? To return to the emergency situation, is the intention to have a stock of vaccines available for all the major strains of FMD that might occur in order for the emergency vaccination scheme to work?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Royal Society recommendation, which we accept, was that we should help initiate an international effort to try and find a single "polyvariant"—I think is the term—vaccine. We need to pursue that in the EU and the OIE. There is no such vaccine at the moment. I cannot give any indication of how soon science will produce one.
	As regards the immediate situation and having vaccine on standby or available for an emergency situation, it is the intention that we would cover what I understand are the seven main strains of foot and mouth most likely theoretically to break out. That position should be achieved in the time needed to clear up the other difficulties in setting up a vaccine option. That is already under way.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned that at the back of the book the Government say that they will expect farmers to insure against foot and mouth rather than get compensation. No doubt before the Government contemplated this they discussed the matter with the insurance companies. What is their attitude to a risk which is largely determined by government action and not by individual farmers whom they would be insuring? Are the insurance companies happy about this?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the last part of the main part of the report refers to discussions which are ongoing between the Government and the insurance industry as to whether some sharing of the risk of the cost of compensation should be established, either in an insurance form or on a levy-based form. There are no final conclusions. It would be right to say that at this point the insurance industry is unlikely to be prepared to take anything like the full risk. We are therefore looking more thoroughly at a levy-based system which could be phased in with the Government still taking the main responsibility in the early years of such a system. Final decisions have yet to be taken.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised if I intervene on that point. My first request is that he should keep the Royal Society report under his pillow every night, as it deals with the key issue of how we avoid a mass slaughter of animals, if there is another serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It goes without saying that slaughter is the right policy for the infective animals and direct contacts, but it also goes without saying that we must plan for and achieve the necessity of vaccination-to-live beyond that.
	The report makes some direct references to what we should do, and I shall pose two questions to the Minister about that. The report states categorically that,
	"Important advances have taken place within the last year, both technically and in public attitudes, which would allow emergency vaccination to develop into a prime control strategy because we can distinguish vaccinated from vaccinated-infected animals".
	The report also says:
	"With significant effort by DEFRA, this should be possible by the end of 2003".
	That is to say that we can achieve the things necessary to put ourselves into that position. I have made that point before, but I make it again, for it is most important.
	I was a little disappointed to hear the Minister say in his Statement that the Follett report should "play a major role". That sounds like the sort of drafting that I did, when I was in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We do not want the report to "play a major role": we want it to be carried into action by the end of 2003. Will the Minister make it clear that the Government intend to carry through the recommendations for specific action set out in paragraph 29 of the report, so that we do not have again the terrible circumstances that we had before? I am convinced that we can avoid such circumstances in the future and that only preparatory action is needed to achieve that.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the feasibility of introducing vaccination, the Government are confident that the problems can be resolved. However, there are still problems. We are confident that the technical advances mean that we can now distinguish between vaccinated animals and diseased animals. That must be strictly validated, but it would be within the timescale.
	There is still some public concern, but we do not see that there is any reason why vaccinated meat should not get into the food chain, subject to the usual rules. Therefore, the anxieties of the trade, which were said to reflect consumer anxieties, should not prevent us from using vaccination in some future outbreak. My noble friend—I call him "my noble friend"; I beg his pardon—the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, says that we are avoiding a mass cull. We are, of course, attempting to use all measures to limit the number of animals killed, but it is important to recognise that the categories to which he refers and to which the Royal Society and I have referred represent a significant number of animals in the kind of epidemic that occurred last time.
	I hope that the other measures in the report will limit the initial cull problem with diseased premises and direct contacts. After that, vaccination would play a major role, but there may need to be other strategies as well, including the use of extensive, pre-emptive cull, as recommended by the Anderson report. The combination of that and greater emphasis on vaccination at that point will, undoubtedly, limit the number of animals killed.
	The noble Lord said that I should sleep on the Royal Society report. I have done that for several months now, and I think I have absorbed most of its lessons. The Government have accepted some lessons in principle, if not necessarily entirely in detail, but we certainly accept the general strategy of the Royal Society report, including its views on vaccination.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I share with my noble friend Lady Byford the view that we should welcome many of the points made in the report, although there has been little time to study the response in detail. There are one or two points that we should identify. One important issue is the national identification of livestock, so that we know where animals are and where they are going. The other, which has been mentioned in several debates, is the importation of meat and meat products. That is an important issue in the prevention of future outbreaks of disease—not only foot and mouth disease but many others.
	I am slightly puzzled about the "blue box" area restriction on the movement of animals for 10 kilometres around infected premises. Public rights of way are to be restricted for only three kilometres. I know that several committees have said that the dangers are minimal, but it would seem to be more sensible to have, initially, a ban on all movements—on footpaths and of livestock—within 10 kilometres. That could then, perhaps, be reduced to three kilometres in due course, once the local outbreak was under control and was no longer an immediate danger.
	I welcome the report's clarification of the position with regard to infected premises, the cull of in-contact animals and the cull of contiguous animals. There is an important difference. In the past few months, people have been confused about in-contact animals and contiguous animals. Now, a contiguous cull will be restricted to in-contact animals, and vaccination will be used, something that we all welcome. However, if we are to get to the desired position with regard to vaccination, we will need a vaccine that produces prolonged immunity and can differentiate between vaccinated animals and infected animals. We can do that experimentally, at present, but we cannot do it on a wide scale. The vaccine must cover several of the main strains. It should be a polyvalent—the word that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, sought—vaccine.
	It would not, of course, be realistic to try to produce a vaccine against all the strains of foot and mouth disease in the world. However, we know the main strains and where they come from. It will take a lot of effort, and we have, at Pirbright, a centre that is world-class in research into foot and mouth disease and other viral diseases. I hope that the Government will immediately provide the extra funding for that work, so that we are not left unprepared. Over the years, Pirbright has lost some good people through retirement, and there is a need to recruit good scientists immediately.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend realises that questions to the Minister on a Statement should be fairly short and to the point. Other noble Lords may wish to intervene.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am coming to my question.
	The £25 million that has been promised will last only five years. It must be for longer than that. Will the Minister assure the House that such funding for veterinary research and teaching will continue beyond the five years?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it takes me all my time to get the Chancellor to agree to any funding beyond the normal three-year cycle. We have got to five years, so I am doing well. However, I cannot imagine, given the disaster that we faced, that any Minister of Agriculture would think that research funding would be adequate at anything significantly different from that level.
	I agree with the noble Lord about livestock identification. It is important, although it will take some time to get a full system in place, particularly for sheep.
	The blue box movement restrictions were primarily directed at animal and vehicle movements and the movements of people who had been handling animals. They proved effective in the latter stages, when we were able to impose them on the last of the outbreaks. There is no equivalent evidence that any walker or rambler spread the disease in the last outbreak or any equivalent outbreak elsewhere.
	The noble Lord and the House have to realise that the impact of closing down significant parts of the countryside during that epidemic not only on non-farming business and tourism but also on some farming business was devastating— in our judgment an unnecessary effect of the measures brought in at that point, which, with hindsight, we would not repeat.
	The noble Lord rightly refers to clarification of different categories of animal. He possibly overstates the fact that we would always use vaccination in relation to extensive and pre-emptive culling. We would have the full armoury of weapons but vaccination would play a more major role in our strategy than was the case until we received these reports.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making the Statement. Has he had any feedback from his honourable friend Mr Elliot Morley in another place about a meeting at the Royal Society last night at which his honourable friend spoke? Sir Brian Follett gave a good quick breakdown of his report. He stressed vaccination to live and biosecurity over and over again. We have not spoken much about biosecurity. Does the Minister agree that it is vitally important that information on biosecurity is dispersed as widely as possible?
	The president of the National Farmers' Union also spoke last night. He stressed the importance—to which I had not given much thought—of biosecurity information being tailored to the geographic and demographic situations that apply across the country, because they are all different. Will the Minister bear that in mind when drawing up protocols?
	The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned tracing and animal movements. I notice that in their response the Government have agreed to a livestock identification programme with electronic identification of individual cattle, sheep and, if necessary, pigs. I am sure that goats will be included as well, because goats are extremely difficult to identify with tags.
	How far is that programme progressing? It is highly important. The hedges of Britain are festooned with cattle ear-tags and sheep ear-tags. There is a welfare problem with animals' ears being nicked: when the tags come out, the ears become infected. If we can have electronic tagging and reading as soon as possible, that would be very helpful with the tracing of livestock movements. Will the Minister also tell us what is happening with tracing out-of-ring sales at markets?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my honourable friend Elliot Morley has reported back to us on the Royal Society discussions. He felt that there was a reasonable consensus between Sir Brian Follett, the NFU and himself on the importance of both biosecurity and vaccination strategies in any future disease control.
	Biosecurity is important; it needs to be tailored a little but there are some essential principles. That is one of the reasons why we and the farming sector need to draw closer together in terms of how we observe and enforce biosecurity. There is a large responsibility on the farming industry as well as government in ensuring that that happens. It is not just a few rotten apples in the farming industry who need to tighten up on their biosecurity; a great deal of mainstream farming needs to observe better biosecurity.
	We are making progress as rapidly as possible on the tracing system. It is a huge system, particularly where the entire sheep flock is engaged, and we need to get it right. The EID will be used for other purposes as well as disease control, so there is also a European dimension. I cannot give the noble Countess a timetable as to when we will reach a comprehensive system, but we are moving as rapidly as possible, in part in concert with our European colleagues. I agree that it is important we achieve that.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I pose two questions on the lack of urgency which many of us feel characterised the Government's response. We welcome much of it greatly and warmly. The ban on personal imports is excellent, as is the responsibility for anti-smuggling going to Customs and Excise and the immediate national movement ban. But is any progress being made on the pilot project with dogs? This has been going on for some time. We were told that there were two; we need at least 2,000.
	Will the Minister give more prominence to two excellent pieces of news in the report, which are not in the Statement and which should be made more publicly known and celebrated? They are the immediate alerting of the Armed Forces in the case of another outbreak and the completely different hierarchy of disposal. It would be excellent if the Government made those two provisions better known; they would be greatly welcomed by an anxious public.
	I return wearisomely to vaccination. The Royal Society recommends that emergency vaccination should be seen as a major tool of first resort. The policy should be to vaccinate to live. That necessitates an acceptance that meat and meat products from vaccinated animals should enter the food chain normally. Are the Government doing anything to educate the public to accept animals vaccinated against foot and mouth disease as they readily accept animals vaccinated against many other diseases? There is no mention of that matter in the Statement, or even, so far as I know, in the response document.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, acceptance into the food chain is necessary. That is partly an issue for the public, but also for the people who claim to interpret the public's views: the retailers and the trade. That process will be going on in parallel with solving the technical problems of preparing a vaccination strategy.
	The experiment with dogs is a pilot study that will be eventually taken over by Customs and Excise, which has responsibility in other areas. It started in September after a previous false start in which we were hoping to obtain New Zealand dogs. We are now using Metropolitan Police dogs. The pilot should be completed within a couple of months. We will then draw conclusions as to whether we can expand it and whether we need 200 dogs, or however many. A pilot study is a pilot study but the total number will be determined in part by the outcome.
	The Armed Forces provision is one aspect of what we would do immediately if a case was alerted. I apologise. I have gone over my allowed 20 minutes.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS SO RESTORED TO THE BILL AND MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 89 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

14 After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"British citizenship: registration of certain persons without other citizenshipThe following shall be inserted after section 4A of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) (registration as British citizen)—
	"4B Acquisition by registration: certain persons without other citizenship(1)
	This section applies to a person who has the status of—
	(a)British Overseas citizen,
	(b)British subject under this Act, or
	(c)British protected person.
	(2) A person to whom this section applies shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if—
	(a) he applies for registration under this section,
	(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person does not have, apart from the status mentioned in subsection (1), any citizenship or nationality, and
	(c) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has not renounced, voluntarily relinquished or lost through action or inaction any citizenship or nationality."
	(2) In section 14(1) of that Act (meaning of British citizen "by descent"), in paragraph (d) for "section 5" there shall be substituted "section 4B or 5"." The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
	14A Line 17, at end insert "after 4th July 2002"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14.
	Amendment No. 14 would provide British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons having no other nationality, with an entitlement to acquire, on application and subject to some further requirements which I shall presently explain, British citizenship. In doing so they would also acquire, automatically, the right of abode here. In other words, they would no longer be subject to United Kingdom immigration controls but could come and go at will, subject to the usual requirements for proof of right of entry on arrival. Additionally, as EU citizens under the Treaty of Rome, they would acquire the rights of free movement and establishment which are conferred on such citizens by that treaty.
	The requirements for acquisition of British citizenship under the clause as inserted by this House would be as follows. First, the applicant must be a British overseas citizen, British subject or British protected person. Secondly, the applicant must have no other nationality or citizenship on the date of application. Thirdly, the applicant should not previously have given up an alternative nationality or citizenship whether through action or inaction on his or her part.
	As regards the third of those requirements, some have expressed concern that it would be unfair to exclude from the entitlement those who gave up another nationality at a time when the consequences of doing so in terms of future admissibility to the United Kingdom appeared different from what they were following our abolition of the special voucher scheme. We are sympathetic to that concern and the effect of Commons Amendment No. 14A would be that loss of another citizenship by whatever means would only disqualify if such loss occurred after 4th July 2002. That was the date on which we spelt out our intentions as regards British overseas citizens and clearly gave notice that the proposed entitlement to acquire British citizenship would not be extended to any other person who enjoyed or had enjoyed the security of another nationality.
	Noble Lords will recognise a strong similarity to the proposition brought before your Lordships' House at an earlier stage in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We are extremely grateful to him for helping us to find efficiencies that needed to be exercised. We hope we have matched the concerns raised by the noble Lord because we want to get the matter right and we now have the opportunity to do so. I commend the Motion to the House.
	Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14A to Lords Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may put on record my thanks to the Ministers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, at Third Reading when he agreed to take the matter back, look at it and establish what provisions were necessary. I am delighted by the way he has assisted in the matter.
	At Third Reading, I drew the Government's attention to the likely injustice to certain British overseas citizens in Kenya and the provision which was made on registration. I believe that Amendment No. 14A meets our concern. It is an honourable outcome for those whose one hope of registering as a British citizen would have been taken away. This is an example of how detailed scrutiny of legislation can help remove anomalies, for which I am grateful to the Minister. I hope only that he will take the opportunity to publicise the provision so that a small group of people can exercise their right as soon as possible and the matter can be usefully concluded. Again, I thank the Minister.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reporting the amendment from the House of Commons. I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, we will of course use our best endeavours to give the matter wide publicity so that it is widely understood how people can benefit. I am grateful to him for all his efforts.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

16 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 1
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part." The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	16A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A.
	Lords Amendment No. 16 and the ancillary Amendments Nos. 45, 88, 126, 192, 216 and 224 had the effect of disapplying the consequential and incidental order-making power added by the Government at Third Reading. We discussed the issue clearly and strongly at Third Reading and I want to explain why the Government feel so strongly that the power is necessary and that some of the concerns that have been expressed are, I am glad to say, without foundation.
	The House knows that powers of this kind are nothing new. The Education Act 2000 and the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 contain similar provisions, as have previous Acts of Parliament since 1992.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, had concerns about the timing. We would not have acted at this late stage if it were avoidable. It was a consequence of the way in which the Bill had fortuitously evolved following the agreement reached with the French about seeking to manage the situation in northern France. We had originally hoped that we would be able to include all the necessary consequential and incidental provisions within the Bill.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. It might be helpful if he were to explain how the agreement with the French—presumably that relating to Sangatte—made it necessary to introduce this clause about statutory instruments and secondary legislation. For someone who does not know all the detail, it is hard to understand why it is necessary.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall gladly give one illustration. The agreement with the French required us to have the powers to bring in juxtaposed controls at Channel ports. We did not have those powers because they sat only in the Eurotunnel legislation and therefore a late amendment had to be introduced. The power in this clause is because of a number of late amendments of that type and it has not been possible to be certain that all the consequential and incidental provisions have been identified.
	On the issue of scope, there was obviously concern and, I believe, misunderstanding. I am asking the House to agree to a Commons amendment which clarifies the scope of the power in response to the representations made across the Chamber at Third Reading. I am pleased to be able to do so, and I am pleased that we were able to respond in the Commons.
	I stress that the power is wholly consequential and incidental. It is about tidying up. It would not allow the Government to make provision which was not purely consequential or incidental on something already in the Bill. Yesterday, Mr Oliver Letwin stated:
	"If the sole purpose of the clause as currently phrased is to rectify a direct conflict of laws, to rectify minor discrepancies of reference and to clarify matters where a lack of clarity would otherwise prevail, it is of course harmless.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 227.]
	My right honourable friend the Home Secretary replied, at col. 228:
	"The hon. Gentleman asked whether the narrow interpretation was correct. The answer is yes. We do not seek to introduce parent legislation by edict, fiat or anything else".
	Mr Letwin also asked about the issue of jurisprudence. Like him, legal advisers have been unable to find any relevant jurisprudence on this matter. Due to the exceedingly minor nature of the changes made by such a power and the fact that they are clearly linked consequentially or incidentally to primary legislation, it is extremely unlikely that such a challenge could ever by brought. The power would not allow either this Home Secretary or any future Home Secretary to introduce a new provision of a type referred to during debate in the Commons.
	I cannot list a large number of instances where we would use the power for the circular reason that they have not yet been identified. We would have rectified them if they had been identified. It is about updating paragraph numbers; ensuring that cross-references are correct; and inserting missing words—again, only in the eventuality that these numbers are wrong, the cross-references are incorrect and the words are missing as a consequence of provisions introduced in this Bill.
	Assuming that the Bill becomes law, the Home Secretary cannot say, for example, "I don't like the way the two-year time limit is working and as a consequence I'll use the consequential power to lower or raise it". That would be completely ultra vires and he would not be able to act in that way.
	The extremely limited nature of the power therefore poses no threat to the conduct of future business as suggested. It would also be interpreted very narrowly by the courts. All it gives the Government is the opportunity to make sure that this Bill, as enacted by Parliament, is able to function in the way that Parliament wants it to when passed. We cannot amend or alter anything unless it is consequential or incidental on a provision of this Bill. I commend the amendment to the House.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Goodhart: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
	Before Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
	16B"Expiry of section (Consequential and incidental provision)
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall cease to continue in force after a period of twelve months unless an order providing for its continuation in force has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament." "

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 225 is designed to give power, by order, to make consequential and incidental amendments, including amendments to other statutes. Therefore, it is indeed a Henry VIII power. Such a power is, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has said, fairly common. I served for four years on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. During the course of that service I saw a considerable number of similar amendments.
	I checked the statutes for the year 2000, and in that year more or less similar clauses appeared in: Section 426 of the Financial Services and Markets Act; Section 119 of the Care Standards Act; Section 105 of the Local Government Act; Section 128 of the Postal Services Act—admittedly, in that case limited to the modification of local Acts of Parliament; Section 109 of the Utilities Act; Section 277 of the Transport Act; and Section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act.
	The need for these clauses to tidy up details has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. It is due to the complexity of modern legislation, which makes it difficult to identify every existing piece of statute law which needs to be repealed or amended.
	The power is a legitimate one. However, there are two matters in connection with this particular power which have caused concern. The first was the width of drafting, which led to not unreasonable fears that the clause could be used for purposes over and above those indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. The width of that power is unusual, although not unique. That objection is cured by Amendment No. 225A.
	The second matter that caused concern was the fact that the clause was introduced by amendment at the last possible stage. Although the Minister has explained why it was done at that stage, it is unique in my experience for such a clause to be introduced by amendment at any stage of a Bill. For that reason, we have proposed Amendment No. 16B, which imposes a sunset clause at the end of the first year. That surely gives the Government time to trawl through existing legislation and to identify any inconsistencies that remain. After one year, that should be unnecessary.
	One factor that has contributed to the problems arising from the clause is that there is no standard form of a consequential and incidental powers clause. My check on the clauses used in the year 2000 showed considerable variations. I suggest to the Minister that one solution to this problem would be that, following agreement—no doubt through the usual channels—the matter should be referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for a report. That report should, first, identify when it is legitimate to use a consequential and incidental powers clause; it should identify in such cases what would be an acceptable form or forms for such a clause; and it should indicate whether a Henry VIII element in such a clause should normally require the affirmative procedure, as this clause does, rather than the negative procedure, which is more generally used in the other clauses that I have mentioned. This would prevent similar problems arising. I hope that the Minister will be able to take that point on board, although I do not expect any assurance on it today. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
	Before Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
	16B"Expiry of section (Consequential and incidental provision)
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall cease to continue in force after a period of twelve months unless an order providing for its continuation in force has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament." "—(Lord Goodhart.)

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, right reverend Prelates on these Benches are often sceptical about Henry VIII powers and we should like to associate ourselves with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful for the Government's clarification regarding the scope of the clause and, in particular, for the Home Secretary's statement yesterday (at col. 228 of the Official Report on proceedings in another place) to which the Minister has referred. I should, however, like to press the Minister for further enlightenment along the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	In another place, the Minister of State cited a number of precedents for the inclusion of such a clause. I should like to concentrate on the precedent that the wording used in this clause, as amended in another place, might set. She read out the clause dealing with consequential and incidental provision in the Adoption and Children Bill. The honourable lady then stated:
	"That is no different from the provision before us...The Bills that have come before the House in the past few days have all contained this provision".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 225.]
	With respect to the honourable lady, that statement is plainly incorrect. The crucial words, in my submission, in the clause in the Adoption and Children Bill, quoted by the Minister of State, are the words that define the purposes for which the Secretary of State can make provision using secondary legislation. The Adoption and Children Bill states that he can make such a provision,
	"for the purposes of, in consequence of or for giving full effect to any provision of this Act".
	The clause inserted into this Bill at Third Reading, as amended in another place yesterday, uses a much broader term; namely, the words,
	"in connection with the provision of this Act".
	There is, therefore, no mention in the clause that we are considering today of the fact that any order needs to comply with the purposes of the Bill to be consequential upon it or to give full effect to it. It merely needs to be "in connection with a provision" of the Bill.
	Indeed, in all the examples cited by the Minister of State, the words "in connection with" did not appear at all.
	Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister about the absence of another term that I had thought might be included in the light of last week's debate. Your Lordships will recall that, in the light of the memorandum submitted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Home Office stated, at paragraph 4, that it wished to use this power to provide for a "transitional period" in respect of appeals under the carriers' liability regime in Schedule 8.
	The clause as amended allows the Secretary of State to make only consequential and incidental provision. However, yesterday in another place, when the Minister of State cited the precedents that I have just mentioned (at cols. 224 and 225 of the Official Report), all the provisions that she cited from previous enactments included the word "transitional".
	There are two possible explanations for the absence of the power to make transitional provision under the clause as amended. One is that in all the enactments cited yesterday by the Minister of State in another place, and in others not cited by her, the inclusion of the word "transitional" was unnecessary, as it was already covered by the words "consequential" and "incidental". If that is the explanation, this House and another place have been enacting otiose provisions for many years.
	The other explanation is that, because the word "transitional" is not used, transitional provisions cannot be made under the clause as amended, only consequential or incidental provisions. If that is the case, either the Government have got the drafting wrong, or they are planning to make the transitional provision under some other power.
	I welcome the Government's attempts at clarification, but I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the points that I have raised.

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, it may be of interest to your Lordships that, following the important debate on this issue at Third Reading I asked the legal adviser to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to produce a report on the various versions of clauses of this kind which have appeared in recent legislation. Such a report will be put before the committee in the near future. I hope that the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart will be listened to by the usual channels and that there will be an opportunity to consider the issue in all of its ramifications, including that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Kingsland was unaware that there is a corrected version of Hansard, and I hope that there will be consequential amendments to his speech to reflect the actual columns that now stand in the corrected version.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall respond first to the thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, addressing directly the question of the sunset clause. As he and other noble Lords have said, there are a number of examples in which the power to make consequential and incidental amendments already exist. They are not subject to sunset clauses. We do not think that that would be desirable, because we could not be certain of identifying all the changes that may be needed within 11 months; others may turn up and it is superfluous to keep returning to extend such a provision. Having said that, we shall make every effort to identify those amendments as quickly as possible; it is clearly desirable to do so, as far as we are able.
	On the noble Lord's important and interesting questions about whether there is scope for reflection on the different forms of words used in such powers and whether that is the product of happenstance or is for good reason, I was going to say that I shall not interpose myself between discussions of the usual channels, but shall let them proceed. However, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has helpfully signalled that the Delegated Powers Committee will move on that. No doubt the Government will want to reflect on its comments and give their views on any report that it produces. Those processes are all thoughtful and sensible.
	I turn to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which, as ever, are good and difficult. He asked why the provision is different from that of the Adoption and Children Bill and why the absence of the transitional terms. The power in that Bill is wider; for example, it includes supplementary provision and anything necessary in consequence of the Bill when enacted. For reasons that the House will understand, we have taken only the narrow powers that we need, especially in the light of the tone and feeling of our discussion last week. On the question of why there is no transitional provision, I am advised that we see no need for it. That is why there is no mention of that in the Bill. I sincerely hope that we are right in that respect. I commend the Motion to the House.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 16B does not concern a matter on which that I feel that it is appropriate to challenge the decision of the other place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

17 Clause 14, page 9, line 8, at end insert— "( ) An accommodation centre shall be established only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein."
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	17A Because it is unnecessary to restrict the power to establish an accommodation centre in the terms proposed.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A.
	We have rightly given considerable attention to accommodation centres at each stage of the Bill. Our aim in establishing such centres is to trial a system that provides for faster processing of asylum claims, minimises the impact on local services such as health and education, and provides the support that has been asked of the state by asylum seekers. Those are the three fundamental aims of accommodation centres.
	We have listened to many debates on various issues relating to accommodation centres: their size, location, how long people will stay in them, the facilities that should exist, how we will process cases more quickly and how we may be encouraged to proceed even more quickly. We have also considered inspection arrangements, ways to ensure that residents are treated fairly, and conditions of residence. We have undertaken to carry out a thorough and transparent evaluation of those pilot accommodation centres once they are operational. I shall not weary the House by listing the significant number of alterations that we have made on the subject of accommodation centres in response to the good scrutiny that the House has given the measures.
	We have never pretended that there is only one way to achieve those three aims, but we have some essential principles. Those are proper, decent and appropriate support for destitute asylum seekers; the importance of faster processing; the fact that it is reasonable to share across the country the responsibility for looking after asylum seekers while their cases are being considered, rather than concentrating it in only a few places; and improving contact management—for obvious reasons, there is no point in our losing contact with people while they are going through the process.
	Within the ambit of those principles, we are prepared to be flexible. Throughout consideration of the Bill, we have listened and responded to points made by noble Lords and others. We have made clear that our minds are not closed on the operation of those principles. For example, yesterday, my honourable friend Beverley Hughes said that we will trial a smaller centre for single men only. She said that it may house about 400 people. I make clear, as she did, that that is not a firm figure, although 400 may well be the upper end of what is envisaged. As I said on Report, the number could be as small as 250.
	I can again confirm what was said in another place: the smaller trial centre may be in or on the edge of an urban area. Let me emphasise that point categorically. Naturally, given that the first few accommodation centres, which are undergoing their planning process, have been in rural areas, there has been some question about that. This is not a rural-only policy and never has been. On the other hand, neither is it an urban-only policy; nor should it be.
	I shall not weary the House with a description of the locations of the 60,000-odd people who are currently in National Asylum Support Service accommodation—I have done so during debate on the Bill's previous stages—but they are entirely in urban areas, in most of our major cities. It is right that our major cities make their contribution by providing support and accommodation for asylum seekers while their cases are considered. Equally, there is no reason why that responsibility should fall only to them. I do not think that the House would think that reasonable. So we are saying neither only urban nor only rural. We must pragmatically consider where it is best to provide accommodation centres that meet the principles and provide for the needs.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, a large number of organisations are involved with asylum seekers and refugees. Have the Government been in conversation or discussion with them? Is there any other example of single-sex provision being made? If so, will he give a chapter-and-verse outline?

Lord Filkin: I would be delaying the House needlessly if I listed everyone to whom we have spoken about the provisions, or with whom we have exchanged correspondence. That is part of a proper process of publishing a White Paper, considering comments on it, publishing Bills and going through the detailed scrutiny process. On recollection, this must be our 13th or 14th day of debate on this Bill, and I am glad to say that a range of external organisations have been vigorous and vocal in their representations.
	I am not certain whether I fully understood the thrust of the noble Lord's question on single-sex provision. We responded directly to previous representations on the matter in the House by saying that there would be a centre for single men. I think that I indicated that such a revision would be beneficial, not least because many asylum seekers are single men. There were doubts about whether single women should be mixed with single men, and about whether it was always desirable to mix families with single men.
	There are no simple answers. It would be naive for anyone to think that there is one simple model that is totally right. Our initial proposed model is an accommodation centre that is substantially free-standing and able to provide support itself without burdening other local services, and which can itself provide the legal services that guarantee much faster processing and avoid the paper chase about which we have all been rightly critical. Although there is much to commend that model, in response to representations we are saying that it is right and sensible to look at alternative models. As I said earlier, we will develop a smaller centre for single men on their own, which may be located near, or in, an urban area.
	We will continue our very helpful discussions with the Refugee Council on its core and cluster models. There are interesting possibilities. We have not resolved all our differences, but we continue to negotiate with hope and good faith. It would be desirable if we could conclude such negotiations so that we would have a third model and a third option. I am signalling three options, which could apply in a rural area, an urban area or—to be pedantic—on a rural-urban fringe. If my maths serves me correctly, we are already talking about nine possible permutations within the scope of the changes that the Government made previously and announced yesterday.
	We have not closed our minds to other alternatives. Noble Lords previously suggested to me that we might have a family-only centre. There is no reason for us to rule that out automatically as nonsense or to say that we are not prepared to consider it. That does not mean that we will accept the proposal, but we will consider it, because it is sensible to think about how we can fulfil the principles.
	We remain committed to the benefits of the free-standing model, which is why we are pursuing our proposals for the two accommodations centres at Bicester and at RAF Newton. Those developments will take their course subject to planning permission decisions, which are out of the Home Office's hands. As we announced yesterday, we have decided not to pursue our proposal for a centre at Throckmorton airfield. The decision was made not because the site is not suitable but because we have been unable satisfactorily to settle the land acquisition arrangements that would allow the site to be developed within an acceptable timeframe for the trial. For a variety of reasons, I am sure that the House will welcome that.
	A centre as large as one with 750 places can be an effective means of supporting asylum seekers and providing the necessary processing speed that we all want. Having a mix of models seems intelligent, because in practice it would allow research of the alternatives. That evaluation will be seriously thorough and will allow Members of this House to engage in the process of evaluating what works best and why. We know that as a nation we must support destitute asylum seekers. We know that as a nation we want to accelerate the process of doing that so that we can conclude these issues, give refuge to those who justify it and remove those who do not. We are convinced that accommodation centres are a crucial part of that answer. However, our minds are flexible about which models would be best for different asylum seekers. That is why pilots, trials and evaluations are carried out. None of us knows now which would be the perfect answer. It is common sense to try a model and then to evaluate it.
	The effect of the amendment would be to open up scope for unreasonable challenges to the location of an accommodation centre. We touched on the matter previously and are clear about it. The amendment would create the possibility of delay and uncertainty, before and after planning consent has been secured, and throughout the life of each centre.
	It is an implicit and enforceable principle of administrative law that the Secretary of State should not exercise his powers unreasonably. We will not locate accommodation centres in areas where we are not satisfied that we can provide for the needs of asylum seekers. It is also implicit in Clause 45 as the Bill left the Commons that support will be provided having regard to a person's personal circumstances. I emphasise that point because it may be germane to many concerns. We made clear in earlier debates that we would not house someone in a centre if it could not deal with his or her needs. As I am sure that the House will appreciate, that does not imply that we are extending a personal preference so that people can choose where they will go.
	We have listened very carefully to the many important debates on the Bill. We have opened a considerable range of alternative options and have signalled our interest and commitment in seeking further sensible options and finding out whether they meet the principles that I announced today and many times previously. For those reasons, it is important to allow trials to proceed. The amendment is not only unnecessary; it is positively risky and dangerous, for the reasons I suggested.
	I hope that the House will agree that Amendment No. 17 is an unnecessary addition to the Bill. I commend the Government's position on this.
	Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A, at end insert "but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
	17BPage 9, line 8, at end insert— "( ) In determining the location of premises provided under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein." "

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, Amendment No. 17B is an amendment in lieu. As the Minister said, yesterday the Government made some significant concessions on this Bill, having listened to the views expressed in this House and in the country beyond. We welcome 90 per cent of those concessions. We have always made clear that we want this Bill on the statute book and we want it there soon. But the Bill needs to be effective and fair in its operation. We wish to remove defects which, if left, would require the legislation to be revisited with further amending Bills over the next year.
	The amendments in this group bring us back to the issue of where accommodation centres should be located. Newspaper reports in advance of debates in another place yesterday led us to hope that the Government had listened to our objections to their plans to build huge centres in rural areas each accommodating 750 people, and that those plans would be abandoned. When the Minister Beverley Hughes spoke in another place yesterday, our hopes that the Government had thought again on this principle were dashed. She announced that the centre on Throckmorton airfield was being dropped because of planning problems and that the other two huge rural centres would go ahead. She said at col. 151 of Commons Hansard that she still considers the site to be suitable. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has repeated that today. That means that the Government have not recognised the fallibility of the model. They have not solved the problem. The only offer on the table was that the third centre would now contain 400 or 450 single males. The Minister said yesterday:
	"That will allow us to test the alternative approach against the larger centres".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 150.]
	No, that is exactly what will not happen. It does not make this an effective trial. The Government's approach is still flawed.
	The Refugee Council has confirmed to me today that the idea does not meet its proposal for a cluster and core approach, which would require smaller centres of about 200 people in each as satellites around a nucleus, where services such as health or legal advice could be properly provided. This system could be sustained in or near urban areas.
	The Minister in the Commons said yesterday that the Government would continue working with the Refugee Council. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has repeated that today. However, there is no commitment or budget to start a trial alongside the three existing large centres. We are given yet another hope, which I fear will be dashed.
	We are left with the trial of pilot schemes that is not effective and does not encompass the type of centre that we believe is the way forward. The Minister has said that the Government wish to be flexible about the trial. You cannot be flexible when you have only one model to trial. That does not work.
	When accommodation centres are established, their success will depend on their ability to meet the diverse cultural, social and linguistic needs of the people who will live in them. We believe that those needs will best be met by locating much smaller accommodation centres close to communities that already provide for the needs of those who come from similar cultures.
	Even the Home Secretary has acknowledged to the chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service that placing such large centres away from urban areas is likely to lead to isolation and potential institutionalisation, with consequent possible psychiatric difficulties for those who are placed there. That is his comment.
	The huge weight of opinion inside and outside Parliament is that the Government have got their pilot modelling wrong. The Refugee Council, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Law Society, Shelter and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, to name but a few, all say that the proposed huge centres in rural areas will cause serious problems for those accommodated in them and, potentially, for the local residents. The sites at Bicester and Nottingham are so isolated from community life that building centres there would close down any opportunity for the Government to reconsider which services, such as education, should be provided on site. If, later today, the Government were persuaded by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth that education should be provided off site in mainstream schools, the location of those two centres would effectively close down that option.
	The smaller the number in each centre, the more likely it is that they will be efficient, humane, decent and safe. The debate on this matter has sprung from two different visions of the way ahead on how to proceed with locating and operating accommodation centres. Our vision was of small, one-stop shop centres in urban areas, each devoted to handling the cases of asylum seekers from a particular area, country or region. At each there would be the relevant translators, lawyers and adjudicators, who would become expert in the affairs of that region. That would allow everything to be done fairly and rapidly.
	I have tabled my amendment in lieu to give the Government another opportunity to reflect properly on these matters. It is very reasonable. It merely requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of asylum seekers when he determines the location of an accommodation centre.
	The Minister has helpfully made it clear today that the Government do not intend to put centres where they are not suitable to the needs of the people who live in them. That is not the reality of what we have heard so far about the siting of the pilot centres. If the Government reject my modest amendment, they will signal to the world that they will not have regard to the needs of asylum seekers when deciding where to locate accommodation centres. That would be wrong.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, am I right in understanding that the noble Baroness is saying that there are no circumstances in which accommodation centres of any size should be sited in rural areas?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, has given me the opportunity to say that I believe that all communities throughout the country would benefit from having accommodation centres trialled in and around them, where they are suitable for the people who will be in those centres. That may well include rural areas, if there are smaller centres around a nucleus providing the services, as envisaged by the Refugee Council. However, the only guarantee we have from the Government is that the model for their pilots is not flexible, but is flawed. The centres will not be suitable for the people who live in them. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 17A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 17B in lieu thereof".—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, there is serious concern about the consequences for children and families of their being placed in isolated rural areas. There is serious concern about their mental and emotional wellbeing in those centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and my noble friend Lord Chan have expressed concern about child protection and the emotional wellbeing of children in accommodation centres. Can the Minister go further in assuring the House that the screening and assessment of families will be adequate? Specifically, can he say that where local authority social services departments are involved, their work will be fully funded and not capped? He may be aware of the local resentment bred by such under-funding of locally commissioned services.
	Some of the children arriving in the centres will be coming not with their mother or father, but with a guardian who may be a virtual stranger to them. We do not want a repeat of the Victoria Climbie case, in which a stranger was given charge of a child. We know the consequences of that. We need to be very careful that children are properly assessed and their families are properly examined.
	We need a complete assurance that the evaluation of the pilots will be robust. I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising how thorough and transparent the evaluations will be. We know that the Government are keen to learn as much as possible from these experiments. I should be grateful if the Minister would offer some assurance that the evaluation will include a report by a child mental health professional—a child psychiatrist, a child psychologist or a child psychotherapist—on emotional wellbeing in the centres. Dr Matthew Hodes, senior lecturer in child and adolescent psychiatry at Imperial College and a specialist in ethnic minority children, would be most willing to discuss the commissioning of such a project. The availability of robust evidence will be invaluable when we consider the future of accommodation centres.
	I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their assiduity in providing information in response to my concerns throughout the course of the Bill.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, from this side of the House, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We seem to be getting different information. For example, last week I read that one Minister at the Home Office said that the closure of Sangatte depended on setting up accommodation centres in this country. I hope the Minister will confirm that that is not so. I do not want France to interfere with or dictate what we should do in this country.
	The difference is simply a matter of looking at the model that has been recommended by the Refugee Council. We say this because we were rather interested when the debate started yesterday in the Commons and the Government announced that one of the centres would not be proceeded with. I suspect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, that this is on the practical grounds of difficulties with planning applications and so on.
	It is important to have a smaller accommodation centre, but that was qualified in that it is likely to be solely for men. This causes us considerable concern because we are not in a position to compare like with like. The Refugee Council model is interesting because it states that facilities should be provided in the community. There is a difference therefore between facilities that are provided within a large accommodation centre and facilities that are provided by the community for the people in a smaller accommodation centre. A comparison would ultimately give some indication of which model is likely to be successful and of how we should proceed in future.
	We are, after all, talking about a pilot project. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in looking at a small accommodation centre based on a model which looks to the community for its support—thereby saving government resources—and ultimately being in a position to evaluate it.
	The Conservative amendment is even more modest than the one that was won on Third Reading. It seeks to insert "shall have regard to" in place of "only when the Secretary of State is satisfied".
	I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the centres will be located so that those in them can travel easily by public transport which is within their means. I also hope that the Government will ensure that such centres will be in places where appointments with legal representatives holding franchises in immigration law at the appropriate specialist level are possible, and that services such as those provided by opticians, dentists, local advice centres, citizens' advice bureaux and places of worships are available. Why should the Government provide them when they are all available within the community? That would probably provide an ideal way of comparing the two models.
	We have rehearsed these arguments at various stages throughout the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will find it possible to take into account the modest Conservative amendment and that we will proceed with a smaller centre on the basis of the Refugee Council model.

Lord Judd: My Lords, the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was very constructive. As I understand him, he is looking to the Minister to provide reassurances when he replies to the debate that will put our minds at rest. I join him in that.
	I have great respect for the noble Baroness for having returned to this issue. It is important that she should. She has, not for the first time in our deliberations, put her case with moderation and real humanity. We all respect that.
	When my noble friend comes to meet the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and which are of concern other noble Lords, he really must remember that we are talking about individual men, women and children and that, in the context of asylum seekers and others, we are talking about people who may have been through the most awful traumas. To take any risk of adding to their psychological difficulties and social problems which have arisen as a result of the experiences that they have had by the processes we have introduced is unthinkable. When so many people with so much experience and expertise in this area are saying that part of what the Government are still proposing is almost certainly going to cause problems and damage, I find it difficult to understand why the Government insist on continuing with that part of their proposals.
	The Government are saying that they regard it as an experiment, but we should not be experimenting with people who, in many instances, have been through enough stress, pressure and trauma already. From that standpoint, I hope that my noble friend will take very seriously the points that have been made and provide rather more convincing arguments in his response than he did in his introduction.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is very good news that the noble Lord is supporting my noble friend because it is important that she has tabled the amendment.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, reminded us that we are, after all, only talking about a limited experiment. I forget how he worded it, but that is the gist of what he said. It is extraordinary that so much of the discussion on the Bill has been about accommodation centres—and yet, at any given time, we are talking about only some 3,000 asylum seekers out of some 80,000 whose cases are being dealt with.
	I wonder—perhaps I am being a dreadful cynic—whether the Government expected and wanted the response of the press and the public, which is that most people now think that the majority of asylum seekers will be housed in accommodation centres. They will not be. It will only be one in 25 at any given moment. The rest will be settled in the community in many different ways.
	So I slightly wonder whether this experiment is entirely about what we are told it is about or whether it has got a slightly different agenda to give the public confidence. I have said that before and I feel even more so that that is the case after reading the report of the debate last night in another place.
	That having been said, we must carry out the experiment as well as we can. As has been said, this is about people. The accommodation centres will house people who have been suffering greatly, and they must be right for them, as they must be right for the communities in which they are placed.
	My noble friend is giving the Government the opportunity to accept an amendment which will allow for infinite flexibility in this experiment. I do not know whether there will ever be a situation where, say, half of asylum seekers are in accommodation centres—I doubt it very much—but, should they be, it is very important that the system is flexible from the start.
	I hope that the Minister and the House will take the amendment seriously. It may not say everything but it gives the flexibility required without harming the other provisions in this part of the Bill.

Lord Desai: My Lords, it is difficult to argue against the amendment, but I spoke against it at an earlier stage and I shall try once more—my inhumanity bit—and see what happens to my reputation.
	Despite what the noble Baroness said in answer to my noble friend Lord Corbett—especially in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said—the recommendation seems to be that we cannot have asylum seekers anywhere but in urban areas. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that you have to have places of worship, lawyers—and no doubt ethnic food places—and so on. The idea is that the entire burden of accommodating asylum seekers in centres will fall on urban areas.
	But urban areas are currently taking the bulk of the burden because, as my noble friend said, some 50,000 or 60,000 people are now living in urban areas. A small experiment is proposed by the Government—four centres. My noble friend has come back and said, "Okay, not four centres. Maybe fewer. Maybe one or two of 750 and some of 400". But no, that will not do either. The rural areas which are normally pleasant and green, where people love to live, will alienate foreigners. Foreigners are foreigners. Foreigners cannot have our green and pleasant land. They cannot be accommodated in low-density areas with lots of fresh open air. No, they cannot do that. Why? Because if they live like that, their children will be disturbed. So their children have to live in crowded urban areas and they have to go to schools where they will probably—I have said this before—get beaten up. That is what happens to strangers in small schools.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting words into my mouth.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I did not say that the noble Lord said that. I said that last time.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the argument that I was using was not between urban and rural areas. I was saying that if accommodation centres are to be set up, there ought to be one project on the Refugee Council model in an urban area where we can compare like with like. The type of service talked about as being provided in the community is the very type of service that the Minister is effectively providing in accommodation centres. Let us look at where the actual benefit occurs.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I have great respect for the noble Lord, who knows so much more about this than I shall ever know. I hate to contradict him. If he reads tomorrow what he said, as I listened the sense was very clear—that the centres cannot be located anywhere except where all the facilities are available. I have only lived in urban areas. I lived in London and now I live in Hastings, for weekends, so I know how strained are urban areas. The argument clearly is that rural areas must bear none of the burden and that, no matter what people say, rural areas will not accommodate any asylum seekers—not even one or two centres.

Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend is getting himself quite waxed up about the issue of urban areas.

Lord Desai: Why not?

Lord Judd: My Lords, can he address in his interesting remarks an issue that concerns some of us very deeply and is partly related to urban areas—size and accessibility?

Lord Desai: My Lords, I said at an earlier stage that in Islington, where I was chairman of the Labour Party for some years, a council estate of 750 would be regarded as bijou and very desirable because it was small. Many citizens live in much larger council estates. They would be shocked that your Lordships thought that a centre accommodating 750 people was very large. In a sense, the Government's argument has always been that the people in centres should not live there a very long time and that if one wants to minimise their length of stay, those people must have sufficient legal and other facilities within the centres to expedite their cases. No one has yet argued that there are not economies of scale in that respect. If you try to do this at a level of 250 people, all you will do is lengthen the stay of those unfortunate people. In your desire to do well by them, the unintended consequence would be that you would stretch out their misery more. If you want to do that, do that—but do not think that is a humane thing to do.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, we are talking about something that does not yet exist. We are talking about somewhere where none of us hope we ever will live. We appreciate the Government's desire to get on with this legislation but we have a right to set certain parameters. That is why I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the amendment. I hope very much that the Minister—who is not quite in the league of Job but is almost getting there—will listen carefully.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am new to your Lordships' House and still learning its ways but it would be as well to remind ourselves just what we are talking about.
	We are talking about a government proposal to set up accommodation centres as part of a response to an undoubted public demand that we deal more effectively and efficiently with claims for asylum in this country. The process needs to be both faster and fairer to avoid the long days that presently arise in too many cases. People outside will not understand if they get the impression that there is any attempt in your Lordships' House to obstruct these general endeavours.
	Listening to the debate, I get the impression that, perhaps with reluctance, there is general support for the idea of accommodation centres except that we do not want them in rural areas—they can only be in urban areas; they must not accommodate more than 250 persons; they must be in clusters; and they must have access to buses and trains. When one adds all those things up, people listening to your Lordships' debates may get the impression that there is not much enthusiasm for accommodation centres in the first place.
	As I understand the proposal—and as my noble friend the Minister, with his enormous patience, will no doubt remind us—and despite what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the proposition is for a trial. As the right reverend Prelate said, there are no such centres at the moment. We do not know what we are talking about in that sense. As my noble friend the Minister made clear earlier, the Government are seeking the authority of your Lordships' House for a trial of about nine variations of the proposal, which he explained at the beginning of the debate.
	I get the impression that there are noble Lords who, against a background of general support, are only willing to support the idea if their definition of the ideal accommodation centre is the one proceeded with and therefore there cannot be an experiment. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Judd argued against an experiment.

Lord Judd: My Lords, there is a certain amount of ventriloquisation going on in this debate. I argued against including in an experiment a model which, it was widely agreed, had too many dangers to be risked among people who had already experienced so much trauma. I also raised the question of the very concept of experimenting with people who may have been through the most terrible experiences.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I have great respect for those organisations who have doubts about the whole proposal but that does not make them right. We can respect their concerns and doubts but they know no more than any of us—including myself—what may be the result of this experiment. We regard this as an experiment but we are here talking about the most efficient, effective and sensitive manner in which we can deal with applicants for asylum, many of whom have had tremendously traumatic experiences—I will not weary the House with the arguments I made earlier—but who may find sanctuary, comfort and support within the walls of accommodation centres that would not otherwise be available to them if they were housed in the wider community while their claims are processed.
	I do not know whether that is right or wrong but no one else in this House does either—which is why I hope very much that we will allow the Government to have this experiment, so that we can learn from what goes on and over time develop methods of properly dealing with applications in a way that avoids long delays and the further upsets to peoples' lives caused by processes that go on for years when the answer is no and they have to be deported back to their home countries.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly to the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Desai. None of us who knows a little about the immigration business—I should add that I am a former immigration Minister—are against experiments to try to find out how such centres can work better, more efficiently, more quickly, and, above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, observed, more humanely, for those concerned. Some of the people about whom we are talking have been through trauma, and have had a terrible time in their own country. When they come to this country, they are looking for decency and justice.
	We have spent too much of the time allocated for this Bill talking about accommodation centres. All the experts involved—namely, the Refugee Council, the Immigration Advisory Service, and so on—say that it is a bad experiment; and, indeed, a very expensive one. On that basis, one is inevitably led on to ask, "Why do it?" Perhaps I may read a statement from yesterday's debate in the House of Commons:
	"Why are we going down the road of vastly expensive accommodation centres, which no one wants and no one in their right mind thinks will be a success, when we might spend a fraction of that money to employ a minority of the people involved to improve the present system, so that it does indeed become firm, fast and fair?"—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 183.]
	Those were the words of Glenda Jackson, Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Highgate. She was not pressing for refugees to be put in rural areas because they should not be placed in urban areas. She made the point that she does not actually believe that this experiment will work. That is what lies at the heart of this debate. That is why I very much approve of the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
	After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, my noble friend's amendment is very modest. It simply asks the Secretary of State to,
	"have regard to the needs of the persons to be accommodated",
	in these accommodation centres. Surely the Secretary of State will not "not have regard" to such needs. Evidently, the Minister of State for the Home Office who replied to the yesterday's debate in the other place made the point that she did not like the original amendment that we sent to the Commons because she was frightened of judicial review. No judicial review would decide that one place is suitable while another is not; the judicial review would decide whether it was the decision of a "reasonable person" to put an accommodation centre in a certain area.
	Where does the fear of judicial review lie in this even more modest amendment? It can apply only if there is a real fear among Ministers on the government side that they will make the wrong decisions. Surely they should not attempt to vote on this issue with that thought already on their minds. If they are to take the right decisions, and if they believe this to be a fair trial—I agree with the concept of fair trails—they should support this amendment as being a perfectly fair idea for the Secretary of State to pursue.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with whom I served in the House of Commons, albeit on opposite sides. In this debate we have heard the words "flexibility" and "experiment". It is quite right for us to recognise that we are dealing with people who have their own opinions, people who have attitude, and people who are beset by children; in other words, people of all kinds. Therefore, it is very important for us to argue for flexibility and experiments.
	There is one comment that we have not heard from my noble friend, who is rather curt as regards the issues that arise in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, cited some of the organisations that have written about these concerns. Perhaps I may add some further names to that list: the Immigration Advisory Service; Amnesty International; the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association; the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; the Law Society; the Commission for Racial Equality; Shelter; the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture; and the Electronic Immigration Network. Each of those organisations has a proud record. They know a lot about refugees and asylum seekers. After we have considered this amendment tonight, I expect my noble friend to say that sensible and constructive discussions will take place with all those organisations.
	The Government do not know everything; we do not know everything. The issue of asylum seekers and refugees is highly complex. I believe that my noble friend has a duty to inform this House of what he and others in the Home Office intend to do. This is all very well, but we are considering this amendment at the last moment and the Government have given us their view on the situation that confronts this House. However, all the time we are dealing with people. That is why it is impossible for us to come to any hard-and-fast conclusions tonight. This debate must continue. Every organisation that I cited is against the idea that rural circumstances should prevail as regards accommodation centres. They may be wrong in that respect. But, with the depth of their experience, I believe that they are probably not wrong.
	Over the next six months, or in the coming year, the Government have a duty to bring forward their own propositions. This House and another place should be constantly informed. That is not an unreasonable request. At present, the House is informed by way of question and answer; but that is not good enough. We are entitled to have a full report within 12 months—and, indeed, a further report after another 12 months—as regards what is happening because, as I said before, we are dealing with people.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I shall briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, who, incidentally, does know his way very well around this place. In his soothing tones, the noble Lord told us about the Government's new policies. But I put it to him that the concept of separation was introduced by the Government. None of us would be so concerned this evening about what is a very modest amendment if it were not for this sense of taking asylum seekers away from the community in the interests of speed as regards their applications and placing them, and educating them, somewhere else. I wish to speak later on the question of education, but one must remember the services that are so closely connected with the concept of accommodation centres. I urge all noble Lords to support this significant amendment moved by the noble Baroness.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, no one has answered the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that concentration is the best way of speedily processing applications, which is the object of the whole exercise. I do not wish to dwell on recent history, but, a few years back, the Conservative Party was advocating a removals agency, the work of which was to be facilitated by large concentrations of asylum seekers. Now, when the Government have adopted some of the less obnoxious aspects of that proposal, it has taken a completely different view. So, there are some politics involved here. I do not in any way impugn the humanitarian motives of noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendment, but that is worth bearing in mind.
	No one is proposing that these centres become permanent ways of life. People are not expected to stay there a long time. The object is to process people quickly and then enable those who are allowed into Britain to establish themselves wherever they want. It seems to me that concentration and the economies of scale that result are the most efficient way of getting people through the system quickly so that they can start to lead a normal life and recover from the trauma of the whole experience. Scattering them does not seem to be the best way of achieving that.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on that point. With his usual intellectual acuity he has put his finger on the central issue that noble Lords have often wandered away from and ignored.
	The central purpose of accommodation centres is to see whether we can fulfil our obligations to provide support to people in ways that do not increase the burden on local communities—as we already know how that operates—and that significantly increase the speed of dealing with their cases in a fair and proper way. As there may be one or two noble Lords who have not enjoyed every moment of our past 14 days or so of discussion, I remind the House that we intend to ensure that the accommodation centres that we propose will have facilities on site to deal with the legal processes. I refer to the initial hearing with legal advice that we shall discuss later and an appeal to the courts through the Immigration Appellate Authority. In other words, all the documentation, the people and the lawyers will come to the accommodation centres. That is why we are optimistic that the speed of processing will significantly increase and that we shall reduce—indeed, I hope eliminate—the paper-chase that has been characteristic of some previous practices in this respect.
	Noble Lords are perfectly entitled to argue that they want people to be housed in small centres. However, in our view, those would not comprise accommodation centres in any sensible meaning of the word. We cannot see how they could have the legal facilities on site of the kind that we are talking about. Therefore, if noble Lords want slower processing, they may by all means vote for options that do not pilot an integration of facilities on site. Noble Lords are welcome to do that but I consider that such a step would completely close our minds to intelligent experimentation. There is a linkage between speed and the size of accommodation centres as regards the realistic possibility of having judicial facilities on site.
	There is a related point about speed that is highly relevant to the humanitarian issue. We believe that we shall be able to deal with initial decision-making in two months, or we hope substantially less, and to deal with an appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority on site substantially faster than has been the tradition to date. Most people who are accepted for asylum following their initial application will be out of an accommodation centre and settled into the community within two months. A small proportion of claims are accepted after appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority. Those people should be out of an accommodation centre and settled into the community a few months after the legal process has been completed. We believe that what we are proposing will result in faster processing and will get people out of accommodation centres either into the—

Earl Russell: My Lords, does not the word "processing" sound rather more appropriate for cheese than for people?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a good debating point. I believe that I have apologised previously for using the word "processing". I said that it was a slightly insensitive term. However, I am certain that noble Lords understand what I mean by it and that I do not need to repeat that discussion. On a previous occasion I apologised of my own volition. I should have hoped that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would have recollected that without my repeating it. I seek not to take too much time on such issues.
	As I say, size is relevant to speed. Speed is relevant to humanity if one can get people settled into the country more speedily or, if I may be direct, out of the country if they no longer qualify for asylum.
	I refer to the flexibility that the amendment seeks. That flexibility already exists in the provisions of Part 2. Those provisions do not describe any particular site or location for accommodation centres. We have said that centres will meet the needs of residents. Clause 26, as it left the Commons, set out a range of facilities that may be provided to residents. There is a power in subsection (3) of that clause to add by order to that list of facilities.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, that the amendment would open up an increased probability of frequent judicial review. He may ask what is wrong with that. The answer to that is: delay, delay, delay. If noble Lords want more delay, they should vote for that measure.
	I refer to the advocacy of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on child protection issues. The director of social services has responsibility for asylum seekers in that area, as he has for any other resident. He has a full responsibility to protect children from abuse or any other form of neglect. The Children Act will apply fully in that regard. We have already said that child protection will comprise one of the duties of the monitor who has been provided under the Bill. Earlier debates indicated that noble Lords are content with the protection afforded through legislation such as the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000. Of course, unaccompanied children will not be housed in accommodation centres.
	We shall ensure that children in centres have access to appropriate mental health facilities. We are discussing with the Department of Health how to provide those facilities. We shall ensure that there are arrangements to identify any mental health problems in children and that appropriate liaison and referral processes are in place to do so. We shall evaluate those services as part of the study. We are discussing with the Department of Health funding for social services in that respect. I may not have covered all the points that the noble Earl raised, but it might be more efficient if I deal with any that I have not covered by letter, as I believe that we have discussed them previously on a number of occasions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about Sangatte. It is not the case that France is running our asylum policy. The Bill as a whole is crucial to addressing concerns with our system that have been expressed in this House during our many days of debate. I refer to concerns that all share, including the French, with regard to draw factors, slowness and whether we attract more people to us and to northern Europe as a consequence.
	I turn to the central question. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, did not refer to it with his usual tact. He basically said that we should not experiment. I could not disagree more. Of course we should experiment because what we have at present is not good enough. It is not good enough for children; it is not good enough for families and asylum seekers; and it is not good enough for the country in terms of the slowness and paper-chase of the system. We already know what accommodation centres look like that do not have integral facilities. In continental Europe there are plenty of examples of—to put it tactfully—clusters of several hundred asylum seekers put together in a building with little support or services on site. We studied those and we did not consider that they were satisfactory. That is why our model is vastly different. We seek to provide the support that people need, to fulfil our obligations and to deal with their cases expeditiously. We do not need—

Lord Judd: My Lords, I take seriously what my noble friend is saying. But does he not agree that if he is asking us to accept the case for experiments, it is not acceptable to include in those experiments people who are at risk and who have been through—I repeat—possibly extraordinary trauma and to include arrangements that so many people with insight and experience say are dangerous?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I was about to come to those issues.
	We also know of another model. The model does not involve several hundred—perhaps 200 or 300—people living in accommodation, of which there are plenty of examples in continental Europe; it involves 20 or 30 people living together in clusters of units and obtaining their services in local communities. We know what that model is like because 50,000 people in Britain who are asylum seekers are currently receiving services of that type. It is not very good. That is why we cannot be so complacent as to believe that the present system will do and that we should not look at something else.
	There is not time to go into detail about what is wrong with the dispersal system; we have discussed those issues on many occasions in this House. There are considerable problems for families. They feel isolated and at times experience harassment. They suddenly move to an area in which they know no one and they have to find a school place and obtain support services. That is bewildering and such people feel lost. They find it extremely difficult to cope with that dispersal. They may be in that dispersal area for only six months while their case is considered, after which they move on.
	Under the current system, a family comes into an induction centre, is put into emergency accommodation, is moved to a dispersal area 200 miles away where they may be for six months and, if they get a "yes", they choose to move somewhere else. We argue that that is a nonsense for the family. It is not good. The argument that we should not experiment I find amazing. I find it amazing at times that it comes from some of the organisations that I believe are genuinely arguing for their candidates.
	We must experiment to try to make the system better. I sometimes wonder whether some of those advocating that we should continue what we are doing and not try any such proposals base that on a belief that when anyone has claimed asylum, they should never be removed. It would be lovely if we were in a world in which that was possible, but it is fantasy-land.
	I am in danger of losing my ill-earned reputation for being quiet and tolerant.
	In conclusion, the amendment would effectively damage the objectives. It would open us up to delay and judicial review. We have signalled our willingness to experiment with a variety of different forms so far—I repeated those commitments from the Dispatch Box—

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be most grateful if my noble friend would not press the matter.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I asked the Minister if he would continue after this debate to see the bodies that I mentioned or any representative body in order to persuade them that the Government are right in carrying out a sensible experiment. That is all that I asked him to do.

Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, we will continue the dialogue, particularly with the Refugee Council. We would be pleased to do so. Over the summer, I was glad to have a whole range of discussions with people. The Government will not give a mandate or veto to any external organisation; nor would noble Lords expect me to do so.
	I have spoken at length. I strongly urge the House to reject the amendment for the reasons that I have advocated and in the interests of asylum claimants to this country.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate. As ever, in his helpful way, the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, once again made my case for me. He rightly referred to the fact that there is a public demand that the chaos that the asylum system of this country has fallen into since the Government came to power has to be sorted out.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, twice as many people are seeking asylum in this country; there is a backlog that would take more than 43 years to clear on the Government's present plans for accommodation centres. That is what I call chaos.
	We have debated this matter in great detail and I shall not repeat some of the excellent points that have been made from all sides of the House. The Minister reminded us—courteously, as ever—or those of us who are old lags at this game, that we are 14 days old today in our consideration of this Bill.
	I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. This is necessarily a telegraphic debate; the noble Lord was not able to be with us on the previous 13 days. I assure him that if he had been, he would have heard details about the plans to which I have referred for a nucleus and satellite system, whereby the nucleus would provide those important services. He rightly pointed out the need to achieve economies of scale.
	We agree with the Government that there should be intelligent experimentation in modelling and piloting when setting up the new accommodation centres. The problem is that we believe that the Government's model will not involve intelligent experimentation. The Government are still intent on effectively establishing one model: that is, two large centres in rural areas and another of 400 or 450 single men; we are yet to find out.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have given as clear a commitment as I can. We are keen to pursue and develop the core and cluster model to which the noble Baroness referred.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I pointed out in more detail in my opening remarks that our hopes had been dashed previously. A hope is being held out today without the budget or the plans that should go with it; it falls alongside the existing plans that the Government have put before us. That is our difficulty.
	It is not my intention to promote the urban/rural debate. When the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was discussing accommodation centres, he seemed to be suggesting that asylum seekers would be living in some green and pleasant land. Let him go and see Bicester or Nottingham; does he think that they are a green and pleasant land for asylum seekers to live in?
	The Government have made significant concessions on various matters, which I welcome. Am I being churlish in asking them to reconsider their stance on this modest amendment? It would not be damaging. After all, why should there be frequent judicial reviews? If my modest amendment is added to the Bill, why would people want judicially to review their way out of what appears to be, from the Government's point of view, a successful future in accommodation centres? It is not churlish to ask the Government to do what is right, decent and humane. I ask the House to give another place the opportunity to discuss this matter once more and I ask the Government to think again.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, the original Question was that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A, but do propose Amendment No. 17B in lieu thereof. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17B) shall be agreed to?
	*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 171; Not-Contents, 120.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

19 Clause 15, page 9, line 12, after "centre" insert "for a maximum period of four months save in exceptional circumstances" The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
	19A After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
	"Length of stay (1)The Secretary of State may not arrange for the provision of accommodation for a person in an accommodation centre if he has been a resident of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of six months.
	(2)But—
	(a) subsection (1) may be disapplied in respect of a person, generally or to a specified extent, by agreement between the Secretary of State and the person, and
	(b) if the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate in relation to a person because of the circumstances of his case, the Secretary of State may direct that subsection (1) shall have effect in relation to the person as if the period specified in that subsection were the period of nine months. (3) Section 45 is subject to this section.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) or (2)(b) so as to substitute a shorter period for a period specified."
	19B Page 18, line 35, at beginning insert "An order under section (Length of stay) or"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19A and 19B in lieu thereof.
	The issue of length of stay was debated in another place. The amendment brought forward by the Government was welcomed there. Oliver Letwin commented:
	"we accept it as the best that the Government are willing to offer. I am grateful that the Minister gestured towards reducing it further".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 164.]
	Simon Hughes added:
	"the proposal for a six-month limit is greatly welcome. It will set a discipline . . . The new proposal marks progress and we will not disagree with the Government".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 172.]
	This amendment will mean that a resident will remain in an accommodation centre for a maximum of six months unless, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Secretary of State decides that it is appropriate that the person should remain for a short time longer. If he does decide that, it will be for a maximum of a further three months.
	We have also provided for an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to be made allowing Parliament to shorten either or both of the six-month and the additional three-month periods. That is a clear indication that we are not simply saying that we accept that these limits are as good as it gets; it says that we shall continue to do all that we can to drive down processing times in the way that we have done since we came to power in 1997 in order to secure a speedy, fair and credible system.
	The amendment recognises that there will be exceptions. If, for example, someone is due to receive a determination shortly after the six-month limit, we believe that it would make sense to require that person to remain for a short period beyond six months rather than subject him to upheaval. Of course, the intention will be to complete as many cases as possible end-to-end within the initial six-month period or less. But in cases which are particularly complex, documentation will need to be obtained from overseas or from other organisations. There will also be cases where asylum seekers have themselves delayed the process. In those instances, it is sensible to ensure that we have the capacity to require the applicant to remain for a short while longer in the accommodation centre. There may be other circumstances in particular cases in which it may be appropriate to require a person to remain for longer than six months. We intend to set out clear guidance on that area and will publish it as appropriate.
	Furthermore, our amendment ensures that a person may remain in an accommodation centre if he wishes. Whatever views we may have about accommodation centres, it would make no sense to require someone to leave where they wished to stay.
	The remaining amendments with which we are disagreeing—Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 41, 42 and 44—are consequential.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 19A and 19B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, these amendments refer to the suggestion that was made in the House of Commons by my honourable friend Simon Hughes. He thought that six months should be the maximum time but was prepared to acknowledge the need for flexibility in individual cases. We are delighted to see a time limit on the face of the Bill and I thank the Minister.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank the Minister. This government clause is more significant than the credit given to it outwith the Chamber and another place has demonstrated. The Government have recognised in the final part of the clause that maybe we shall achieve the correct piloting and modelling in relation to accommodation centres. It will be possible to reduce the time spent in those centres to less than six months, and I hope significantly less than six months. I welcome this pragmatic move forward by the Government.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be adjourned until 8.25 p.m.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, may we not carry on with the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there has been discussion on this matter and there is agreement across the Chamber that we shall break now to deal with the dinner-hour business.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think we should divide on the matter.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, no one has discussed the matter with me. My name is associated with the following amendment and I press for this matter to be dealt with now.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had expected that we would take the dinner-hour business now. That was agreed across the Dispatch Box. I acknowledge the point made by the right reverend Prelate that I had not discussed it with him. I had not realised that he expected the House to carry on with the Bill. I believe that it is wise to break now. We have had a long debate and there are several other amendments to be considered thereafter.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Cyprus

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards resolving the problems of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
	My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this short debate on Cyprus, specifically Northern Cyprus, a region too often given the "blind eye" treatment and frequently misrepresented within the United Kingdom. More significantly, and with dire consequences for Turkish-Cypriots, the European Community has scandalously manipulated the issue.
	I do not have time to retrace in detail the history of the past 40 years. Suffice to recall that the Greek/Turkish arrangement for an independent Cyprus under the 1960 Treaty of Alliance precluded both enosis (union with Greece), the Greek and Greek Cypriot preference, and taksim (partition of the island), favoured by Turkey and Turkish Cypriots.
	The Treaty of Guarantee committed Britain, Turkey and Greece to underpin and safeguard that arrangement. Yet between independence in 1963 and the 1974 Turkish "peace operation"—or invasion, depending on one's point of view—the Turkish-Cypriots endured a nightmare of discrimination, persecution and ultimately murder by their Greek-Cypriot neighbours. The 1974 Turkish action was fully justified and curtailed genocide that was already assuming monstrous proportions.
	On 28th December 1963 the London Daily Express reported:
	"We went tonight into the Turkish Cypriot Quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 men women and children had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there and we saw sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears".
	The American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, stated that the Greek Cypriot leader's,
	"central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on massacring Turkish Cypriots".
	Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon recalled:
	"No one who lived as I did in Cyprus in the 1960s will forget what was happening. It was an attempt at the systematic elimination of a community. It was ethnic cleansing before that phrase came into vogue in the Western media".
	I do not suggest that every Greek-Cypriot colluded in those atrocities. History shows that many of them died as a consequence of Grivas/Makarios treachery. Like the IRA, EOKA operated on the theory that orchestrated murder and mutilation can keep an entire people in fearful subjection. Later, on 15th July 1974, five days before the Turkish operation, hundreds of Greek-Cypriot supporters of Makarios were slaughtered and were buried by the truckload in mass graves when mainland Greek forces overthrew the Makarios regime. One can only regret the Cold War pressures and strategic geographical considerations that precluded Britain from fulfilling her treaty obligations at the time. I do, however, pay tribute to our armed servicemen and women who have, since 1974, manned the Green Line and helped sustain peace on the island.
	If one refuses to acknowledge what the Greek Cypriots did to the Turkish Cypriots—whom they outnumbered four to one—then one will not understand why the Turkish Cypriots established their own state. Nor will one comprehend why today they must not agree terms that may seem reasonable to outsiders but would put them at risk again.
	I must ask why Britain—my nation—continues to be party to actions by the European Union that condemn a small, peaceful community of Turkish Cypriots to an economic, political and cultural wilderness, while concurrently embracing nations that until recently have been our sworn enemies.
	That question cannot be answered without giving consideration to the recent "enlargement" deliberations by the European Union. The decision to exclude Turkey, our faithful ally for the past 80 years, while admitting a divided Cyprus in a situation that would enhance the Greek Cypriot south while further impoverishing the Turkish Cypriot community in the north, is surely perverse.
	I cannot accept protestations that the European Union would ensure equity. Is it not the European Union that imposes an embargo on exports from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; the European Union that has sustained the embargo on direct flights into the TRNC; the European Union that has allowed Greek influence to dictate, effectively, that Cypriot history must be considered only from the moment Turkey sailed to protect a besieged people from barbarism?
	Do we as a nation, while we preen ourselves on our human rights record, on our equality agendas and on our world leadership, do anything to ameliorate this injustice? No. We turn a blind eye; we raise no ripples on a "Sea of Humbug". And to what effect? Industrious Turkish Cypriots must abandon their beloved island and seek their livelihood in the UK, the USA and elsewhere. Hence, the Turkish Cypriot population gradually decreases and Greek Cypriot propagandists make much of that.
	The European Union is effectively contributing to social engineering—dare I use the phrase "condoning social extermination"? We are helping to accomplish the "final solution"—what the Akritas Plan designed by Makarios, Yorgadjis and Clerides failed to accomplish by oppression and murder in the 1960s.
	Not only are a people affected by the imposed isolation of the TRNC; the whole ecology of the Mediterranean may be put in jeopardy through financial constraints that preclude comprehensive, sustainable and scientifically planned environmental programmes in the area.
	Worldwide, protected areas are set aside to conserve nature and landscapes with, invariably, international support for such objectives. In poorer regions financial support is made available through NGOs and the commercial sector. When decisions are made and actions implemented, national parks are sustained by inbuilt tourism programmes. How can that happen in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus when, after almost 30 years of peace there, we in Europe still fail to acknowledge its existence? The Mediterranean region is a global priority for conservation. Can that be achieved without cognisance being taken of Northern Cyprus as a major element in the equation?
	Is there to be no recognition, no co-ordinated international programme, no resources, no tourists, no realism and no hope? Time is running out for the protection and maintenance of the biodiversity of the Karpaz; and the need to set up a national park—even more extensive than is often talked about—is a priority.
	The town of Dipkarpaz and numerous villages could be restored within their own present boundaries to accommodate literally thousands of tourists who would, as I have for years, come to enjoy the natural environment and cultural heritage of the area. That is the viable alternative to gradual encroachment of development based on individuals' desire to have a skyline villa or a stretch of unspoiled beach. It is the alternative to ecological destruction.
	Some good work is being done on a shoestring budget. On the initiative of my good friend, Kutley Keco—a resident of Girne and a devoted conservationist—there has been a successful programme supported by Glasgow and Swansea Universities to study and to help protect the habitat of the endangered green turtle, which nests on Northern Cyprus beaches. But that is only a fraction of what needs to be done. I do not have time to speak about the significance of the Kyrenia Mountains or the Klidhes Islands. Suffice to say that millions of migratory birds move through here annually and that unique flora and fauna exist now, but that, without realistic and timely international support and understanding, we shall negatively "change the face of nature".
	My allocated time is gone. I am grateful for your Lordships' attention and to those who will participate in this debate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, will be able to indicate some understanding by the Government of the enduring plight of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, its people and its environment.
	It will not be adequate to be told merely that the United Kingdom Government, "support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General". That does not stand up to close analysis because the United Nations, so far, has not been an impartial interlocutor. It has taken the Greek Cypriot side on the fundamental question—that the Greek Cypriot administration is the government of all Cyprus. That is not the case. That can never, ever again be the case.
	There can be a solution on the island, but it has to be one that guarantees—absolutely guarantees this time—the integrity of the Turkish Cypriots.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, in the various debates that I have listened to in the other House over many years, uppermost in the minds of participants has been a recognition of the rights and the security of Turkish Cypriots as well as the rights and security of Greek Cypriots. It is right and just that that should be the case.
	In this short debate the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, provides a welcome opportunity at a crucial period in negotiations on the Cyprus problem to raise a few questions about the current status of those talks. Most importantly, it enables the Government, in their dual role as a guarantor of the independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus and a member of the Security Council, to bring together for us today the strands of the negotiations and to let us know the precise situation.
	It is my understanding that, at the start of this year's talks between the leaders of the two communities, June was agreed as the target date for reaching an agreement on an agenda that was set by the United Nations Secretary-General.
	That agenda required discussion of four core issues: the constitution of Cyprus; its territorial integrity; its security; and the combined issue of refugees and properties. Alas, it seems that progress was disappointingly slow, if not static. I understand that Mr Denktash did not wish to examine the core issues set down by the Secretary-General before pre-conditional proposals establishing two sovereign independent states in Cyprus, which would between them sign a treaty for a common structure. The Denktash proposals were outside the parameters set by the Security Council resolutions and therefore they were as unacceptable to that body as they were to President Clerides.
	I make that point because I have before me a press statement issued on 9th July by the Security Council. It which expresses disappointment that progress remained slow and that the June target date for agreement had not been met. The statement stated:
	"They [the Security Council] noted in this regard that the Turkish Cypriot side had been less constructive in its approach so far and had declined to support the goal of resolving the core issues by the end of June".
	The statement goes on to urge both sides to co-operate fully to meet the requirements of Resolution 1250 and to work with Mr Alvaro de Soto for a settlement that takes full consideration of relevant Security Council resolutions and treaties. I shall quote a little further from the statement:
	"They"—
	the Security Council, of course—
	"strongly underscore the need for the Turkish side in particular to move in this direction".
	Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not allow a divisive element to enter into the talks and that they remain firm in their support of the legitimacy of Security Council resolutions and that the desire of the Government and their aim is a unified Cyprus, which means a single sovereign state? Is that the Government's position?
	Early last month, though no substantial breakthrough had taken place at a meeting in New York between the two leaders, the UN Secretary-General used his good offices once again and established the setting up of two committees composed of representatives of both communities to consider the laws and international treaties that must be applied following a solution of the Cyprus problem. His intervention to keep the two sides together and to keep them talking must be welcomed. Can the Minister tell the House whether the two communities have nominated their representatives and whether the committee is in talks on those matters? Will she also confirm, at so close a date to the European summit in Copenhagen next month, that the solution of the Cyprus situation will not be a pre-condition for the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union?
	I shall conclude on this note, as I have only four minutes in which to speak.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: It has gone.

Baroness Boothroyd: Yes, it has.
	The time has now come when, in Whitehall jargon, there is a need to know. There is a need to know the Government's view of the obstacles to progress, a need to know the Government's view on the factors that contribute to the failure to make substantive progress in the talks. With that in mind, I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Friends of Cyprus. The Question is about resolving the problems of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The short answer is in two parts. First, the problems stem largely from a regime linked to the Turkish lira, which has lost half its value in 12 months. The economy has declined by 10 per cent in the same year and added 2 million to the number of those without work. Secondly, the most effective way to resolve the problems of Northern Cyprus is for the two communities on the island to agree a solution that would end the false division of the island so that both Cypriot communities can make the most of EU membership. That could also reverse the position that, sadly, there are more Turkish Cypriots in London than in Northern Cyprus because of the lack of economic prospects.
	The call for a solution and for EU membership was launched in summer by Mr Ali Erel, a Turkish Cypriot businessman, in a document called The Common Vision of a Turkish Cypriot Civil Society, now supported by 90 NGOs and others. There is now a virtual consensus among Turkish Cypriots on the need for a settlement, for membership of the European Union and for Turkey to be given the rendezvous date that it seeks for the opening of talks on its application to join the EU in five weeks' time in Copenhagen. For those and other reasons, I believe that the two Cypriot communities have now, after long years of hurt and division, been presented with a triple golden opportunity. There is a win for both communities in Cyprus being given a date to join the EU in Copenhagen. The biggest short-term winners will be those living in the north.
	There is also a win for both communities from agreement to establish a bi-communal, federal state. There is a win for Turkey in getting a date to open its negotiations on EU membership, on which the new government in Ankara has said they are keen. For the first time, the move is positively supported and encouraged by Greece. Thirdly, there is a win for both communities, their mother countries and the region from further rapprochement between Turkey and Greece. It is encouraging that Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of Sunday's winning party, the AK party, has responded immediately to an invitation from Greek Prime Minister Simitis to make an early visit to Athens.
	I understand that there is substantial agreement between the leaders of both Cypriot communities on the setting up of a federal state that gives maximum autonomy, meets the proper security concerns of both communities and ensures full respect for human rights. There are important issues to settle: freedom of movement between both parts of the federal state; the rights of property; and the eventual removal from the island of foreign troops, other than those under UN or NATO control. I understand that the United Nations is soon to table proposals based on progress so far in the talks to deal with those and other important issues.
	There are, perhaps, five weeks before the Copenhagen summit for the great prize of an end to the Cyprus problem to be won. It would compound the tragedy if the two Cypriot communities and their political leaders squandered the unique opportunity to build a better future together for themselves and their neighbours.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, on securing the debate. The timing is most apposite, as we digest the political significance of Turkey's election results, not only for Turkey but for the wider international community. In addition, it was only last month that the EU announced its bold decision to opt for what has been dubbed a "big bang" enlargement in 2004. Historic and laudable though that goal undoubtedly is, we would be foolish to underestimate the difficulties still to be resolved, not least with regard to Cyprus.
	It is the fervent wish of all who care about Cyprus to see a united Cyprus by the date of its accession. That is the aim of the EU, although it is also the EU's position that a settlement to the Cyprus problem is not a pre-condition for accession. I understand the rationale for that, but I shall return to the question of whether it is a realistic option.
	Movement in the peace process seems now to depend upon the submission of a solution plan by the UN Secretary-General, but it is unclear whether there will still be enough time to reach a framework settlement before the Copenhagen European Council next month. Can the Minister say when she understands that the UN Secretary-General's proposals will be submitted?
	The slow progress in negotiations is bad news for all of Cyprus, but particularly for Northern Cyprus whose political isolation, as we heard, has served to impoverish the Turkish Cypriots and has caused much economic hardship. The dwindling community of Northern Cyprus has been cut off from the rest of the world for the best part of three decades. Its people increasingly crave the normalisation of politics in the region. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, rightly said—opinion polls back him up—that 90 per cent of Turkish Cypriots want to be part of Europe. However, until that happens, there is little to encourage the younger generation to stay. Economically underdeveloped and internationally unrecognised, Northern Cyprus has little to offer its people. EU membership could change all that, almost overnight.
	The EU has also admitted the possibility of a far less rosy future. Although the EU has stated that a political settlement would facilitate the accession of Cyprus enormously, it has also made it clear that no third country can have a veto over a candidate country's accession and that there is no legal obstacle to Cyprus joining the EU if a settlement is not reached. Legally speaking, perhaps, there is not; but, practically, it is far from a risk-free strategy and depends as much on the relationship between Greece and Turkey as on the Cypriots of both communities. While heavily armed Turks and Greeks still face each other across the Green Line, the Cyprus dispute will continue to sour relations between Greece and Turkey. The fact is that Greece and Turkey play an important role in Cyprus, and relations with those two countries dominate Cypriot politics.
	It is an ironic twist that the Cyprus negotiations have entered this new and urgent phase just as Greece is poised to assume the EU's rotating presidency in January. The prospect of navigating the diplomatic minefield that would arise from a situation in which a NATO country had an army of occupation garrisoned on territory in the EU is a grim one indeed. Equally, if the Republic of Cyprus were to join the EU in the absence of a settlement, what incentive would there be for Northern Cyprus to compromise and negotiate, if the EU door is shut in its face? We should consider the reported comments of Mr Denktash last month, made as he left the UN building in New York:
	"Only one point. If EU takes Cyprus as a member, talks are ended and Cyprus is divided forever".
	There is still a chance that there will be a breakthrough in the direct talks in Cyprus before the EU summit next month. We are entering a crucial time for efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem, and I hope that the Minister will be able to report some positive developments.
	I believe that there is hope and that it is possible to find a solution that addresses the legitimate concerns and vital interests of all, but I am concerned by the slow speed of progress. There is no shortage of incentives to find a solution. A new EU with the whole of Cyprus in it would be better for both Cyprus and the EU. After all, the raison d'entre for the creation of the European Union was to facilitate the reconciliation of enemies and to prevent war and conflict between members. Nowhere do those sentiments have more resonance than in Cyprus today. Nothing would be a more fitting memorial to the EU's founding fathers' vision of "a Europe whole and free" than the accession of a reunited Cyprus in the first wave of enlargement of the twenty-first century.
	7.50 p.m.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, on his Question. It comes at a timely moment—a sensitive period when Cyprus is seeking to join the European Union and there is an encouraging rapprochement between Turkey and Greece. We congratulate Mr Erdogan on his considerable victory in the recent election in Turkey.
	I have known Cyprus for over 30 years. I bought a house there in 1972, prior to the island's division into two separate entities and administrations. I have been back to that house every year since then. It happens to be in what is now called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In 1972 it was in the Republic of Cyprus, but in my opinion such a country constitutionally has ceased to exist.
	We must not go into the background in detail, but Turkish Cypriots form 22 per cent of the population. There will never be a settlement in Cyprus without their agreement. Both sides must reach an agreement. You cannot have a united Cyprus just by asking for it: you must obtain an agreed Cyprus in which both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots come together in agreement and have that agreement approved by the two communities in their own sectors of the island.
	The treatment received by the Turkish Cypriots was terrible: the 22 per cent of the population they comprise were forced into 3 per cent of the island's territory. Your Lordships can imagine the dreadful situation. Then there was a Greek-inspired coup from Athens, overthrowing the Greek Cypriot President, Makarios. Then the Turkish Government and army intervened, in their role as one of the lead guarantor powers of Cyprus. There have now been two separate entities for 30 years. We must not live in the past. We must accept that we have moved on by 30 years: two communities; two entities.
	In Kosovo there was a similar ethnic dispute between the Kosovans and the Serbs. The Serbs lost their homes, as the Greek Cypriots did in Northern Cyprus. What did the world say about Kosovo? It did not say the Serbs must return to their houses. In fact the international community is encouraging Kosovans to live in what Serb houses still remain. This is a contradiction. In Kosovo financial support is being provided to Kosovans to occupy the empty houses, whereas in Cyprus some people are living in the past and saying that the Greek Cypriots must have the right to return to Northern Cyprus.
	I do not know whether the Minister has been to Northern Cyprus; perhaps she will tell the House. Most of the Greek Cypriot houses do not exist; they have either collapsed and disappeared through 30 years of deterioration or people have built new houses on top of them. Houses do not remain for people to return to.
	I turn to enlargement. There are two reasons why there has not been great movement in the talks: first, the recent illness of President Denktash, who is in the Presbyterian hospital in Washington after a heart operation. That is bad news because it could delay the talks; we wish him well. The second is the foolish decision by the European Union to tell the Greek Cypriots that they do not have to reach a settlement but will be brought into the European Union whether or not there is a settlement. That removed the incentive from the Greek Cypriots to reach an agreement.
	That is now the core problem. There is no encouragement to the Greek Cypriots to reach agreement with the Turkish Cypriots. I hope that there is an agreement. The Turkish Cypriots want one and the Greek Cypriots certainly want one. It can be on the basis of what exists in Belgium: some kind of federalism in which the Greek Cypriots have their sector and the Turkish Cypriots have their sector but there is overall sovereignty for international affairs.
	If there is not an agreement and the European Union goes ahead with enlargement, I fear we will have a situation where Turkey does not annex Northern Cyprus but integrates it. It is already well on the way in doing so. As has been said, the lira is already the currency; and the telephone and postal systems are integrated with Turkey. In almost every respect Northern Cyprus is already integrated.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, my contribution will be brief as my knowledge of this beautiful island is desperately small. In declaring my interest I must tell your Lordships that I visited Cyprus at the invitation of the Republic of Cyprus Government for three days in June this year. Your Lordships will say that that is hardly enough time to form much of an opinion. But it showed in the starkest and clearest way how desperately we need to find a solution to what is commonly referred to as "the Cyprus problem".
	I pay great tribute to the people who made my visit so interesting. Their generosity and hospitality were overwhelming. They answered all my questions without flinching, even when we talked about the time my brother had been fighting there in the British Army in the 1950s. They expressed a great weariness and anxiety about their future and I promised to do what I could to help their process towards accession.
	I was fortunate enough to meet a number of Ministers: those for foreign affairs, the interior, justice and public order; the deputy chairman of the House Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the head of the Negotiating Delegation for the Accession of Cyprus to the EU, His Excellency the President of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the House Standing Committee on European Affairs, the Deputy Mayor of Nicosia, and senior civil servants; as well as our own High Commission. So your Lordships will see that my time was filled with meetings.
	But while I was there I witnessed at first hand the desperation and anger felt when a comment was made about there needing to be a "new state" of Cyprus. This was taken literally, when I understand it was not meant to have been. But it was a clear indication that the language we use in this highly charged atmosphere is crucial. Misunderstandings can arise where there should be none; and however frustrating and time-consuming it might be to find the right words to help both sides of this debilitating dispute move forward, I urge Her Majesty's Government to continue to find them.
	I come to this debate from a brief but intensive visit to Cyprus. My reasons for going were to see for myself how its accession plans were progressing. I found that it was very much on course to assume membership of the European Union, and it is to be warmly congratulated on that.
	But essential problems remain. Turkey has threatened to annex the north if the EU accepts Cyprus, and Greece has warned that it will veto the expansion programme if Cyprus is refused entry. As we have heard, the June date for a basic accord on the future of the island has come and gone and still there appears no resolution.
	Meanwhile, the families on both sides seek information and closure on the fate of their loved ones who disappeared during the 1960s and 1970s, when inter-communal violence escalated. I saw for myself the place where relatives stood every Saturday, and have done so ever since those dark days, holding up photographs of their family member. It was a lonely and dusty site on the Green Line, guarded by a UN soldier, and it left me with a profound feeling of sadness.
	I therefore ask the Government what they are going to do to help resolve this essentially humanitarian problem. What progress has been made to share information and set up a joint DNA bank which will help identify any exhumed bodies? This was, I understand, suggested by the UN in 1997.
	The Cyprus problem has been called "a quiet crisis", and indeed we in the EU appear to be jogging along to accession of the 10 applicant countries without hearing too much of the problems this will heap on us all should a solution not be found. The benefits of accession for both Northern and Southern Cyprus will be a prize beyond worth. It is my fervent hope that my next visit will be to a united island, whose people live and work together in mutual recognition and respect of their cultures and who can go forward into a new progressive age as members of an enlarged and enhanced European Union.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that I come from a divided island. I know how, after reading a few books, speaking to a few people or visiting a few towns, it is easy to claim that you are an instant expert and to give advice. I do not wish to stand here before you today as an instant expert on the Cyprus problem. I certainly feel it is not possible unless one has been several times to both Northern and Southern Cyprus. I am pleased to say that I have been to both on several occasions.
	I want further to highlight what my noble friend Lord Maginnis of Drumglass mentioned: the economic, political and cultural wilderness in which Turkish Cypriots find themselves as a result of crippling embargoes imposed by the Greek Cypriot administration.
	Since 1963 Turkish Cypriots have been prevented from reaching their full economic potential. The Greek Cypriot administration has imposed very stringent economic sanctions on the Turkish Cypriot area: an all-embracing embargo, coupled with an intensive campaign of hostile anti-Turkish Cypriot propaganda, that has led to the almost total isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people from the rest of the world.
	The Turkish Cypriot people have been effectively denied their right to engage in political, economic, social, cultural and sporting contacts with the rest of the world. And we, the British, European and international community not only turn a blind eye but actively participate in these embargoes. We do so by recognising the Greek Cypriot regime.
	Let me give your Lordships a few brief examples. In April 2001, the Greek Cypriot leader, Mr Clerides, admitted that the Greek Cypriot administration had imposed an embargo on all ports and airports in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, declaring them closed and illegal. The Greek Cypriot administration refuses entry to Southern Cyprus for all foreign visitors who have chosen to enter the island through seaports and airports in the North. For those who wish to cross from South to North, there are restrictions on the duration of stay, and this does not even allow for an overnight visit. Nor are visitors to the North allowed to purchase any goods or souvenirs.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, has already mentioned the embargo on direct flights into the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I have experienced this myself. While I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to both parts of the island, I can well understand how the necessary stop-over in Turkey adds to the inconvenience of travelling to Northern Cyprus. The extra expense and time required undoubtedly discourage tourists from visiting this beautiful part of the island.
	Your Lordships will also be aware that in July 1994 the European Court of Justice held that member states of the EU could only import fruits and vegetables carrying certificates of origin from the "Republic of Cyprus". Without access to international markets, how can Turkish Cypriot economic sectors develop? With no one willing to import Turkish Cypriot goods, much of the area's agricultural crops—citrus fruits, vegetables, potatoes, wheat and barley—are simply left rotting in the fields.
	Greek Cypriot hostility was also directed against the British bank, HSBC, at the beginning of this year. HSBC was the first major foreign bank to open branches in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot authorities, however, began campaigning against their presence in Northern Cyprus. They sent a senior manager of the Greek Cypriot Central Bank to London to put pressure on the British Financial Services Authority to stop the HSBC's operations in the North. Mr Clerides himself issues further threats and is reported to have said, "We will do what it takes and act accordingly".
	Whatever suggestions are put forward for the resolution of the Cyprus problem, I believe that we in the UK should stop participating in these inhumane embargoes. We express concerns for human rights around the world, yet for nearly 40 years we have stood back and allowed one part of a small island to deny the rights of the other to economic development. Are we going to do the same for another 40 years?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, compared to many of those who have taken part in the debate, I am a relative newcomer to the Cyprus conflict. Last year I spent some time in both sides of the island. I then convened what became the Open University Institute study of ways to resolve the Cyprus conflict, with participants from both sides of Cyprus, from Greece and from Turkey. I was closely associated with the study of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, has referred. It proposed a Belgian framework to get away from the theological argument about two states, one state which takes place between the two parties. I rapidly discovered that if you attempt to be unbiased on the Cyprus question, both sides accuse you of being hostile towards them. It is one of the sad elements in this issue.
	However, I do not recognise the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. There have been atrocities on both sides and one hears about them at length from both sides. Some of the people see 1960–64 as more important, others see 1974 as more important. Once one looks at the conflict, it is clear that the basis for a settlement is relatively straightforward. The heads of agreement put forward by the United Nations in 1992 trades territory for guarantees for the Turkish minority—a property settlement which does not involve full restitution. The Greeks in the South must recognise that. Recognition on both sides that joining the European Union provides external guarantees and external constraint and prosperity for both, in particular for the North, is the only basis on which we can agree.
	Outside countries, including our own, have to be involved in pushing both sides towards a compromise. That means the Greek Cypriots must recognise explicitly that there are limits on restitution of property and on the pursuit of legal claims; and a full acceptance of Turkish guarantees and of a continuing Turkish troop presence. However, on the Turkish Cypriot side there must be a move away from the dreadful theology of separate states—at least for 10 minutes—before one has a unified federal state. Furthermore, there must be a full acceptance by Mr Denktash that there is to be a constructive negotiation. I am sorry to say that there is a remarkable lack of understanding of the European Union and of integration. In Northern Cyprus there is a need for a crash programme for education and training. During my latest visit to Brussels I was pleased to meet a Turkish Cypriot intern in the Commission, because that is precisely the kind of thing the Commission should be doing.
	The United Kingdom has major interests at stake. Part of the island is sovereign-base territory. There are no fences between the sovereign-base territory and the rest of the island, and whether we like it or not we are deeply involved. I am happy to say that, on the whole, the UK Government have made a constructive effort. I wish that other European Union governments, apart from the Greeks, were more actively involved in support.
	The situation in the North is adverse. Emigration is continuing, and to judge from some of the Turkish Cypriots to whom I spoke, it is driven not only by economic despair but by political despair in opposition to a rather corrupt regime. There were those who told me that emigration is likely to continue until there are only Anatolians left, in the absence of a settlement. It costs a huge amount. It costs the Turkish mainland a huge amount to support the Northern Cyprus economy. The economy rests fundamentally on gambling and offshore higher education.
	Thankfully, we now have a new Turkish Government—and a majoritarian Turkish Government. Thankfully, we have the most enlightened Greek Government we have yet had, particularly with the Foreign Minister, Mr Papandreou, playing a most constructive role. So we have a window briefly open between now and Copenhagen which must be utilised. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government, together with their EU partners, the United States and the UN, will bring the greatest possible pressure to bear on both sides to seize that opportunity.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for initiating this debate at this crucial time. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, mentioned the negotiations between the two leaders—for which this is a crucial month. We on these Benches hope that a settlement can be achieved that satisfies both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, as well as Greece and Turkey. Can the Minister throw any light on whether the Government feel that a framework agreement can be attained by 12th December?
	Cyprus is on course for membership of the EU in 2004. While we welcome the accession of Cyprus, we are concerned about the consequences for Turkey. Turkey's intention to become a member of the EU is most welcome. However, if Cyprus accedes to the EU as a united island, the Ankara government will consider annexing northern Cyprus. That would have serious implications for Turkey's plans to join the EU.
	Although the application for membership of the EU was deemed to have been made in the name of the whole island, in practice initially only the southern two-thirds of the island would stand as a full and active member. This understandably concerns many Turkish Cypriots. However, in the long run there must be many benefits for them, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said.
	The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, drew attention to the lack of economic prospects. At present, Turkish Cypriots are isolated because the TRNC is recognised only by Turkey. To acquire a passport, a citizen of the TRNC must apply to the Turkish embassy and must often travel to Ankara while his or her application is processed. Turkish Cypriots cannot take part in international events or be members of global organisations. As several speakers have said, their population is falling fast due to emigration.
	An international embargo on trade means that Turkey is the only available market for produce from the TRNC, whose economy is financed entirely by annual injections of cash from Turkey. As a result, initiative and private enterprise are being stifled. The tourism boom, so obvious in the south, is almost entirely absent. The recent devaluation of the Turkish lira has widened the gap between the two communities, and it has been estimated that per capita income in the south is as much as seven times greater. Many Turkish Cypriots see membership of the EU as a way of reducing this gap. The EU has earmarked more than 200 million euros for the development of northern Cyprus—once partition has ended.
	Some Greek and Turkish Cypriots have made progress towards working together. The respective Chambers of Commerce have agreed on a joint training programme at an estimated cost of 1.5 million euros. The programme provides for the training of middle-sized businesses and information about how the EU is developing.
	Alongside the talks on political disputes there is the issue of missing persons—on both sides of the Green Line. We welcome the UN Secretary-General's appeal to both sides to address this issue seriously. We welcome also the recognition by the two leaders that, although the issue should be dealt with separately from the main talks, it must be dealt with in parallel with those talks.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned biodiversity. I want to mention heritage and conservation. At present, both communities remain cut off from their parts of their heritage. The Green Line divides the past as well as the present. Churches and mosques have become the tools of political bargaining and manipulation on both sides. UNESCO has not provide any assistance to the Turkish Cypriot authorities to preserve common cultural heritage. I am unsure whether that has anything to do with the TRNC's lack of recognition as a political entity. Clearly, the sooner a settlement is achieved, the better the chance that Cyprus's heritage, both Greek and Turkish, will be preserved effectively.
	As the debate has made clear, Cyprus's future remains uncertain. All parties stand to gain from the opportunities over the coming months. I hope that the outcome of negotiations will satisfy the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and all those with an interest in the future of Cyprus.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, on initiating this most interesting and vigorous debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part.
	We have entered a crucial period in Cyprus's history. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated, there are five weeks between now and the Copenhagen European Council when I and all those with the best interests of all Cypriots at heart hope to see a reunited Cyprus invited to join the European Union. This would be an historic moment indeed—a long and wounding division in Europe healed by the Greek and the Turkish Cypriot communities choosing to come together once more, united in a new and wider Europe.
	We all agree that both sides of the island of Cyprus have suffered immeasurably. However, in this debate we are discussing the particular problems faced in the north of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots face restrictions in their trade with the European Union and with the rest of the world—although I assure the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan, that the British Government do not impose any restrictions on trade other than those that have arisen under international law: the UK is an important Turkish Cypriot market. Tourism faces a constant battle as the reputation of the north for beauty struggles with the lack of direct flights. As both goods and tourists have to travel via Turkey, so costs rise and the Turkish Cypriots lose their competitive edge. Inward investment is rare because of the north's unrecognised status; and the economic problems felt in Turkey have had a knock-on effect in the north too. The result has been massive economic migration. We estimate that in the UK there are 100,000 Cypriots. To put that in perspective, there are only 180,000 currently living in the north of Cyprus.
	I regret that the consequences of the legacy of bitterness and strife that has dogged Cyprus since independence in 1960 have affected each and every Turkish Cypriot life in this way. But I must state categorically that we, the Government, do not and will not recognise a separate state in the north of Cyprus.
	I firmly believe that the only way to solve the problems of the north of Cyprus is through a comprehensive and lasting settlement which is seen as just by both sides. No one is asking either side to "sell out". Both sides have important principles at stake which they will not be expected to give up. The Government believe that such a settlement is within grasp. I urge Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides to reach out and take this opportunity to create a new Cyprus—a new Cyprus that would release the potential of all Cypriots, secure within an enlarged European Union.
	As the House will know, Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides have been in face to face talks since January to find a settlement. The United Nations Secretary-General has asked that the details of the talks remain confidential. But I must repeat that any settlement must be seen as just by both sides. Insecurity—an issue raised by a number of speakers—lies at the heart of the fears of Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The two have not lived together for 30 years, in some cases 40 years. Mistrust reigns. We must first achieve a settlement that ensures that the physical security of the two sides is guaranteed. That means that a settlement must banish the twin nightmares of the two sides: the Turkish Cypriots' fear of domination by the Greek Cypriots; and the Greek Cypriots' fear of secession by the Turkish Cypriots and formal partition.
	I repeat that a settlement that meets all those needs is within grasp. That is the prize to which my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale referred in his helpful speech. The United Nations is working hard to bridge the remaining gaps between the two sides. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in sending our strong support to Kofi Annan—and his special representative, Alvaro do Soto—for his efforts to help the two sides to come to the just and lasting settlement to which the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and other noble Lords referred.
	Yes, this is a two-step process. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, we need a settlement reinforced by the accession of a reunited island to the European Union. The European Union has consistently made it clear that its aim is for a reunited island to join the European Union. It has promised to accommodate the terms of a settlement, which may mean substantial exemptions from EU law. But let me make clear that we and our European Union partners will act according to the 1999 Helsinki European Council conclusions, which stated that a settlement was not a precondition for accession but that all relevant factors would be taken into account.
	The Copenhagen European Council will take decisions on Cyprus' accession. The outlook is good. I look at the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, when I say that because she strongly underlined that point in her speech. The latest regular report from the European Commission shows that Cyprus has closed more chapters than any other candidate country and has met the political criteria. To the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, I say that the European Union door is open to Cyprus. Let it be open to the whole of Cyprus: to all Cypriots.
	Obviously, our debate has centred on Cyprus, but I should also mention Turkey's candidature for the European Union. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and other noble Lords that the Government strongly support Turkey's candidature. We look forward to the day when Turkey is seated around the table of the Council. Important reforms passed by the Turkish Government in August have brought that day closer. The Brussels European Council made clear that Turkey's progress had brought forward the opening of accession negotiations. At Copenhagen, we and our partners will decide on the next stage of Turkey's candidature.
	As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 28th October, for our part, we look forward to Turkey's membership of the European Union in accordance with the conditions that all candidates must meet. Turkey's accession would be good for Europe as well as for Turkey. So we will do all that we can to bring about a decision at Copenhagen moving forward Turkey's candidature to the next stage.
	Noble Lords will note that I am talking exclusively about what we want with regard to a settlement and to the Copenhagen European Council. I shall not enter into speculation about what will happen if we do not get what we want—if we do not get what is best for all Cypriots and for Europe. To contemplate failure is to invite failure. At this historic moment, that is the last thing that should be on our minds.
	Noble Lords raised many points. I shall try to deal with as many of them as possible before my time elapses. If I miss out any noble Lords, perhaps they will forgive me and I shall ensure that they receive written answers to their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned the need to lift trade embargoes on Northern Cyprus and said that the fault lay with the EU. We defend vigorously the right to trade with Northern Cyprus—as we did in the European Court of Justice case. Of the long list of embargoes given by the noble Lord, only the restrictions on trade have anything to do with the EU. Technical difficulties created by the non-recognition of Northern Cyprus will be overcome by a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem and through the accession of a reunited island to the EU.
	The noble Lord also said that the United Nations was not impartial. I strongly disagree. All countries on the Security Council have given Kofi Annan and his special advisers strong support in that matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, also mentioned UN resolutions. The basis of talks is UN Security Council Resolution 1250, which states that settlements shall take full consideration of UN Security Council resolutions. I see that the noble Baroness shakes her head.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, will the Minister respond to the question that I asked in my speech? That is what I am asking her to do.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, that is what I am trying to do. We support the single state of Cyprus. I already mentioned that, which was the crux of the question asked by the noble Baroness.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked whether accession of a divided island would be problematic. We fully agree that it would be. That is not what we want. That is why the European Union wants to admit a reunited island at Copenhagen. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked me whether I had visited the north of Cyprus. I have not yet had that pleasure. Many years ago, as a Member of the European Parliament, I found myself in the buffer zone in a march that brought together Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot women. I was overcome by the heat and, as I came round from fainting, a UN officer was looking down on me and saying, "Oh, another Euro MP asleep on the job!" That is my experience of the Cyprus buffer zone.
	I shall of course write to noble Lords who have asked specific questions and I thank all those who have spoken for the positive nature of the debate. We have a great and historic opportunity.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons resumed.

LORDS AMENDMENT

20 Page 9, line 16, at end insert ", and
	(c) there is a place available in an appropriate maintained school for any dependant of school age" The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	20A Because the power to provide accommodation in an accommodation centre should not be restricted in the manner proposed.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A.
	The issue of providing education for children in accommodation centres has understandably prompted passionate and strong debate because of concern about the needs of children. For reasons that I shall try to explain, the Lords amendment strikes at the heart of what accommodation centres need to provide. It would therefore make them unworkable and frustrate our ability to conduct the kind of experiment that we previously discussed. However, we have not been deaf to arguments raised during previous stages of the Bill. In the drafting of the clauses, we have sought to address two causes of concern.
	It has always been our policy that those whose education needs cannot be met in an accommodation centre can attend a school. We have now made this provision much clearer, stating that it applies where the special circumstances of the child call for provision that can only, or best, be provided by the authority.
	Secondly, we have made clear that the provision that a child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school or a maintained nursery— which caused anxiety at the last stage—is now explicitly subject to the flexible provision allowing children to attend a school where their special circumstances call for it. So the policy is not inflexible and is focused on the individual educational needs of the child. Examples of those who might come within the provision are those with complex special educational needs or very talented or gifted children. It might also encompass children with a high level of fluency in English or who have been studying for international exams and have reached a stage that needs to be continued at a school. Provision will depend on the individual circumstances of each case and will be addressed as such. These flexible provisions make it explicit that the child's interests and needs are properly considered and can be properly responded to.
	I shall now discuss some of the more general arguments about education in accommodation centres. I affirm that the status quo for asylum seekers' children is not good. We debated the matter during the previous stage, so I apologise for touching on it now, but it is highly relevant to these discussions. Children and their parents may travel a long distance and arrive in the United Kingdom with little or no command of English. They are moved into a school where English is predominant. They have little or no support in adapting to that environment. Children learn fast, as we pointed out in other debates. Nevertheless, for the first few months it is a difficult and challenging environment for children who may be traumatised. They will have little understanding of the culture, a poor command, if any, of English, and they may be moving into a hostile environment. There is evidence from previous debates of the possibility of bullying. They may be entering a school halfway through the school year, or, even worse, at the end of the school year with the result that they will get no education at all for two or three months during the summer.
	There are concerns in dispersal about the safety of the environment for the whole family, which I will not go into. As we discussed previously, the challenges faced by schools when a child may attend for only a few months are considerable. The rather crude term for that is "churning". Considerable burdens are placed on schools when there is a constant turnover of children who stay for only a short period before moving on. One may say, "So what? The school must learn to cope with that". But we believe that such a turnover affects other children in the school, because it affects the stability and ability of teachers to cope with their general needs.
	These are strong arguments for our position that children should be educated in an accommodation centre while their families' asylum claims are considered. I repeat that we are talking only about children being educated in centres during the limited period before a decision is made on their case. If they are accepted for asylum after the initial interview, which is when most acceptances occur, they will leave the accommodation centre within a couple of months at most. Some may be granted asylum only after they have made an appeal to the IAA, but that proportion is much smaller. If they were accepted, they would be moved out and resettled permanently in the country as quickly as they wish.
	Rather than feeling any iota of embarrassment about the education of asylum seekers' children in accommodation centres, I feel the reverse. We are right to pilot this experiment, because there are problems with the existing situation. It is already getting late, so I will be brief in building on the other reasons why, apart from the disadvantages of dispersal for families recently arrived in the country, accommodation centres potentially provide better services for asylum seekers' children by comparison to schools. Schools are not tailored to cope with asylum seekers' children; they are trying to meet the educational needs of all children. First, the curriculum can be tailored to the needs of asylum seekers' children. That is extremely important. The centres do not have a curriculum focused on teaching seven or eight year-old English children who are fluent in English and have had several years of schooling. It can be focused on the needs and skill levels of groups that have much less educational experience, much less English fluency, and for whom some aspects could be better rebalanced slightly.
	In accommodation centres it would be possible to provide much more intensive language training for children, for two or three months, which would benefit them regardless of whether their parents' asylum application for permanent residence in the United Kingdom is successful. Because parents will be at the same location, the potential for parental involvement in their children's education in accommodation centres is significant. We want to build on that potential, because parents' active participation in their children's education is in the interests of children and parents.
	In an accommodation centre, children can adapt to a structured education routine in a more protected environment without suddenly being thrown into a primary school in, for example, Newcastle or Glasgow, where they would have no support and no people of a similar background or language. That would be a harsh, exposed learning experience. Accommodation centres provide the potential for a much more structured adaptation to schooling and to Britain, albeit for a limited period, which is all that is needed. An accommodation centre is clearly a safe environment. There is plenty of evidence from the Save the Children report on Glasgow to illustrate some parental anxieties about their children's safety, particularly during their early months in a new environment. An accommodation centre also allows a concentration of expertise. We would expect that some teachers would be very keen to teach in accommodation centres. They would start to build centres of excellence in teaching children with foreign languages how to adapt to education and the British culture and way of life, which would render them better fit for resettlement, if it is decided that that should happen.
	It is justifiable to make an illustrative comparison of what happens to children at present. They enter an induction centre, where they stay for one week or 10 days while their essential climatisation takes place and their needs are assessed. They are then moved to emergency accommodation. They may stay there for a month or two, until NASS dispersed accommodation is found for them. They then move to NASS dispersed accommodation, which could be several hundred miles away. While they are there, they must begin the challenge of finding a place in a school. There is no guarantee of a school place given through NASS emergency accommodation. They have to go through the difficult process of negotiating for a school that has a vacancy and will take them in. The child then moves into that school, where they stay, while living in dispersed accommodation, until their asylum claim is accepted or rejected. The status quo is extremely unsatisfactory for the educational needs of the child, given the frequency of those moves.
	In comparison, under the accommodation centre model that we want to pilot, the children will move straight from an induction centre into an accommodation centre that will provide them with accommodation, refuge, support and a place in an educational environment much more geared to their needs.
	The final argument for accommodation centres being strongly in the interests of children is that they are likely to lead to faster decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, quoted earlier his experience of going to Oakington. He said that the people there were pleased with Oakington, despite the slightly anomalous situation, because it led them to a fast decision. If I understood him correctly, the reason was that they appreciated the speed and certainty. They knew they would get an answer.
	Children in an accommodation centre will move to an answer on whether their parents are going to stay in a centre much more quickly. That is fundamental to our argument on the necessity of the centres.
	To summarise, accommodation centres with education on site are central to our end-to-end managed system, from induction to accommodation centres to resettlement or removal. They were signalled clearly in the White Paper and the proposal has been through the House of Commons twice. The amendment about to be moved is an insistence on the Lords having its way over the Commons. That cannot be right, above all because we are confident that accommodation centres providing education and support for children will deliver excellent education and excellent support.
	Noble Lords are right to say that we cannot be certain of that, but we think it fundamentally right that we pilot and test it in practice and evaluate it. There are in principle some very strong reasons—

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend give way?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall finish in a few seconds. There are very strong reasons why this is so. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, before I call the amendment, I must make a correction to the numbers announced at the Division earlier this evening. The number voting Content should have been 173 instead of 171.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, leave out "not".

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for their patience. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for a number of conversations that we have had in the past few weeks. I realise that we are at a late stage, but I also realise the extent—almost unprecedented in this Parliament—of the opposition to the proposal from the Government Back Benches in another place and the number of abstentions there.
	The more this question has been probed, the more disturbed many of us have become by the implications of the clause. It is a moral issue of how we treat children. They belong with other children. They should not live and be educated on their own. It is also a practical issue of how we educate them in familiar contexts. We have to start with the models that we have. I remain unconvinced by what the Minister has said. I realise that we need to get on, but I shall answer one or two of his points.
	I am pleased about the flexibility being offered, but I do not think it is enough. The status quo is not good enough, but the existing burdens can be met through the current system. The Minister raised a question about dispersal. That raises the question of the location of the school. The Minister said that the curriculum can be tailored. Why not use existing special needs provision? He said that teachers were keen on centres of excellence. Why extend the already pressed teaching profession with another layer? He spoke of the interests of the children, but what he said reflected the educational side of the equation, not the issues of accommodation and living and being isolated from other children.
	Opposition to the proposal comes from a considerable body of opinion from contrasting sources. They are not all groups of people known for resisting change. All these bodies have written to the Home Secretary. I have the documentation here. I shall not bore your Lordships by quoting them, but I shall allude to them. Opponents include all the teaching unions and the Children's Consortium, which covers Save the Children, the Children's Society, Barnardo's and the National Children's Bureau, whose pupil inclusion unit has produced research questioning such a move. The Local Government Association has written of experience in Tower Hamlets and Newham, stressing the mutual benefits of other children being educated alongside asylum seekers. Bill Morris has written from the TGWU's Asylum Coalition. Church leaders have also been involved. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York wrote to the Home Secretary. It is sede vacante at the moment at Canterbury, but I do not need to guess what line the most reverend—but not yet right honourable—Primate the Archbishop of Wales would take.
	Then there is the guidance officially endorsed by the DfES. I shall quote two paragraphs from Educating Asylum Seeking and Refugee Children, issued this year. It says:
	"Rapid enrolment and regular attendance at school is highly desirable for asylum seeking and refugee children. Children should be offered a school place as soon as possible after arrival in the authority".
	The joint DfES and NUT guidance, Relearning to Learn, says:
	"Providing a separate curriculum would only accentuate the 'difference' of refugee children and prevent them from benefiting from working with other pupils. Teachers will recognise that the relearning process—and especially the acquisition of English—will be most rapid if new pupils engage and work with other children in the class. Experience and research with other pupils for whom English is an additional language bears this out".
	How can the Government proceed in the face of such opposition, not only from outside groups, but from documentation endorsed by the DfES hitherto? In brief, this is not joined-up thinking, joined-up education or joined-up strategy. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 20A, leave out "not".—(The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.)

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have changed my mind twice on the issue. I know a bit about this, because I have been the chairman of a local education committee. I have also read last night's debate in the other place. It is the greatest possible pity that the House of Commons did not have this clause first. Last night, one after another, Members of Parliament from constituencies with large numbers of asylum seekers—not refugees—pointed out the problems that the Minister has referred to this evening. They are genuine problems for schools.
	That was my first thought when I read the clause. I said in Committee that I thought the Government had a big problem by having big accommodation centres and having to educate the children separately, because people would want them to be in normal schools. Last time we had the debate, many people, including a number of Cross-Benchers, made extremely passionate speeches, as did the right reverend Prelate, about the importance of children being educated together. I agreed with them. I also thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, from the Department for Education and Skills, who normally does terribly well, gave a rather weak reply. I understand that she was asked to do it at the last minute. It was a Home Office matter. I had a lot of sympathy for her, but I found her reply so weak that I voted against the Government. I had changed my mind. Since reading the House of Commons debate, I have gone back to supporting the Government in this matter.
	I should say to the right reverend Prelate, in regard to the meeting in which the noble Lord was cheered to the echo when he said what he said, that the reason for the people there supporting separate education is that they were confusing refugees—people who had been granted asylum—and asylum seekers. Indeed the quote made by the right reverend Prelate referred to both refugees and asylum seekers.
	The position is completely different. Children who are asylum seekers are in a transitional state and do not know whether or not they will stay. Whether or not one believes that accommodation centres are right, these children are in a transitional state and do not know whether or not they will stay. They may or may not know a little English and so on. I listened very carefully to the Minister and he put the right case on this issue.
	I suggest to noble Lords that they should speak only of asylum seekers and not at all about people for whom decisions have already been made. That is a completely different question. There is every reason then for people to be educated together. The local authorities which have been making the case for the education of these children have a different agenda; they will be able to control where the asylum centre is located by doing so.
	I beg noble Lords to speak only of asylum seekers, who are in a completely different situation. I am sorry that I have changed my mind twice. I have a conscience about it and I want to confess.

Lord Moser: My Lords, I support the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I find the clause very disturbing. I speak both from the point of view of my involvement in education and as a successful asylum seeker 66 years ago.
	I am conscious that we are talking about a small number of people, but that does not reassure me because they are very important. Even for 10 people it is important that we get it right. I am conscious that we are talking about a transitional group, including people who may not stay, but we should treat them on the supposition that they may stay and get it right from the beginning. If they then do not stay, so be it.
	I am not reassured by the constant reference to this being an experiment. If it were not so late in the day I would give the Minister, with the greatest respect, a lecture on what is an experiment. He does not need a lecture from me, but this is not an experiment in any sense that a scientist, social scientist or statistician would accept. An experiment means that you have alternative ways of proceeding; that you have rigorous ways of allocating different victims, or whatever, to those alternative options; and that you have rigorous ways of judging which has succeeded. This is not an experiment. The Government have decided what to do, roughly speaking, and they will then say whether or not it was a success. That is a political view, but this is not an experiment.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We have put on record a number of times that the "trial"—if that is a word the noble Lord prefers—will be very thoroughly evaluated, and that evaluation will be put into the public domain. There is an alternative comparison of the outcome for children and others in accommodation centres in the sense that there is a control group, if you want to look at it, of those children of some 50,000 asylum seekers who are in dispersed accommodation. We are well placed to make a comparison to see which is better. We shall do so and we shall put the results into the public domain.

Lord Moser: My Lords, the temptation to give my lecture gets ever stronger, but I shall resist it. I still do not regard this as a genuine experiment, but I must move on.
	I find the arguments in favour of this trial unconvincing. I shall be very brief because the right reverend Prelate has made most of the points. First, the fact that these children have come from traumatic, stressful and interrupted school systems and experiences—as, indeed, I did in 1936—makes it even more the case that they should get into a normal school environment as quickly as possible.
	Secondly, the fact that they know little English—as I did not either when I came—makes an even stronger case for getting them into a school. One learns English not by having a good English master in front of one but by mixing with children. You learn English very, very quickly that way, so, for me, that argument counts for nothing.
	As to the argument in a Home Office paper that such children will be liable to bullying and racism—so was I in Nazi Germany—I find it rather sad and pathetic. Children on the whole are very tolerant, flexible, helpful and friendly. Of course there will be some bullying, but it will soon be over. That is not at all a strong argument.
	The argument that there will be focused teaching by expert teachers in the accommodation centres does not convince me one iota. What is important is not that the children have good teachers but that they are together with many other kinds of children in the classroom—taught by, it is to be hoped, good teachers. So, again, integration into a normal environment is crucial.
	As to the argument that schools are under great pressure, which has not been advanced by the Minister today but is much evident in the documents, the teaching profession—the heads and the teacher unions—if I may say so without disrespect, is far ahead in its thinking of Members of the House of Commons in this debate. It has shown in a number of statements that its members are willing, prepared and eager to accept asylum seeker children. If the children are there for only two weeks or two months and then go on, they will have had a good experience and met many English children, and the English children will have learnt from them.
	For all these reasons the case for integration, for normal school life for these children—even if they are small in number and here for a very short time—is the main argument.
	Perhaps I may support what I say with a personal recollection. I do not wish to make too great a comparison between the experiences of Nazi refugees and what is happening now, but there are some relevant experiences and I shall talk about one of them. The fact that within weeks—certainly months—I became a very happy boy in English life here owed everything to the fact that I was immediately in an ordinary school environment. It was not that the teaching was particularly brilliant but that I spent my day with children of my own age, being naughty with them, being nice with them, getting to know different attitudes and so on. Some of them were quite tough on me but most of them were nice. It was those early weeks and months that made me feel that this is a wonderful country and made me begin to be a committed person and, finally, a citizen.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there not a danger—particularly as far as the big institutions are concerned—that the children will become institutionalised quite quickly, maybe in one month, maybe two? I cannot think that they will avoid that fate in anything like the sort of period that we are talking about.

Lord Moser: My Lords, that is for argument. I must sit down because others want to speak. That is a good argument. I must finish. I urge the Government, if it is not too late, to think again purely from one angle—letting these children, as soon as they come, mix as much as possible with other English children, especially in schools.

Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he kindly tell us whether he had any command of English when he joined the English school? That is quite relevant to the children today.

Lord Moser: My Lords, a little less than now. I did have some command of the language but, on the whole, not much. That was much helped by having to speak the language because I was with other kids.

Lord Judd: My Lords, in thanking the right reverend Prelate for the opportunity to return to this subject, I take up that last point. What worries me sometimes in our deliberations is that we get into an either/or situation. The point about English is that it is not either/or. I come from a family of teachers and most people who have been involved in education will say that one of the best ways of developing language is to be among others and contemporaries with whom one uses language casually as well as formally.
	Some specific assistance is also extremely helpful and important. It is not either/or; it is seeing the right combination. I wish that we looked more at getting the balance right in our deliberations.
	I do not make the point facetiously that for many of your Lordships and myself a period of three, four, five or six months is just another three, four, five or six months in what has sometimes been called the waiting room. For a child of school age, three, four, five or six months can be crucial in their development. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Moser, made so well is terribly important. It is not just what goes on in the classroom. Part of education is social—sports, recreation and being together. That is why it is so important that children who have been through the most awful experiences should be able to share that social aspect.
	It is also very important in our considerations to be a little more tough in our analysis of the allocation of resources. It is very tempting to say that it is more economical to have specialist assistance available in one place—the accommodation centre. Let us pause for moment and consider how many different years would be taught together in an accommodation centre. Will there be the same quality for each year and stage of education that would be available outside? If there were to be the same quality, what would it really cost? Would that be more economical than putting in specialist assistance to help local schools or whatever to fulfil the task that we are asking of them? We have not heard a rigorous economic analysis of the proposition put before us.
	I know that some of your Lordships do not like the phrase but we talk a lot about the determination to make a success of our multi-cultural society. We have to think about the message that we are giving to our own youngsters in what we say about not enabling the youngsters in accommodation centres to intermingle with them. I have been accused of being a romantic but I am not ashamed. I always regard that as a compliment. A little romanticism in politics is terribly important. I am not sure where the human species would have got without it. The kind of society in which I would like to be living is where the teachers, head teacher and local authority get together and say, "Hey, look at this place. What can we do to help? What can we do to make a place for these youngsters in this terrible situation—even if their parents are a load of charlatans pretending to be asylum seekers when they are not?" And your Lordships know my position on that argument.
	We should be asking, "What can we do to protect those children? We do not want them further damaged. Come on—let us make a home for them. Let us make them feel at home. Let them join in and see how we manage". Then, as a sensitive, imaginative government, we should look at making sure that the available resources are used intelligently, flexibly and imaginatively to help the process.
	What I have found objectionable—I spoke very strongly even by my own standards, if that does not sound too arrogant, at a previous stage—is that the language in the Bill is so negative as to be beyond belief: that they shall not be part of the local community. We really must do better. The real argument is flexibility. My noble friend the Minister conceded in his introduction that there is room for some flexibility. The issue is that the flexibility has not gone nearly far enough.
	I suspect that I have been irritating my noble friend the Minister—who is a friend beyond measure—and that he will not like my saying that he is a sensitive man who understands the arguments being deployed and is doing his best to field the Government's line. That is always a very difficult position. I say that as one who has been a junior Minister in government.
	We need more specific indication of how imaginative flexibility will be there and how part of that will be not only a determination to protect these youngsters from any further damage, to enable them to make the best of even the few weeks or months, but also how we are going to turn what could be a negative situation into a positive situation in terms of our own multi-cultural society.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the Minister for the number of occasions when we have engaged in discussions on this matter. Indeed, he even interrupted his summer holidays in order to discuss the issues involved. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for her courtesy in seeing us. But, as I shall explain, the differences still remain between us.
	We should bear in mind the admission made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that, despite the provision that the Government have in mind, we have to accept that a substantial number of children of asylum seekers in this country will still be educated within mainstream schools because they will not be living in the accommodation centres.
	We must also bear in mind the fact that during last night's debate on the matter in the other place 42 Labour MPs voted against the Government's intention on this matter. Interestingly, those 42 MPs represent areas such as Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, and London—people who have substantial, long experience of asylum seeking children. They are the type of MPs who receive letters and much pressure in this respect, yet they were keen enough to say that the Government are wrong.
	It became very clear in the House of Commons that the Government were not prepared seriously to entertain the Liberal Democrat suggestion that LEAs should be the providers of education, complete with the option to educate children in mainstream schools if they chose so to do. The Government sought to criticise our suggestion on technical grounds rather than engage with the debate. When pressed to do so, their arguments did not convince us. Effectively, there was nothing new that the Government could offer, despite all the intentions to ensure that LEAs should be at the centre of the process.
	My colleagues questioned the Minister in the other place and asked whether she was seriously suggesting that segregation was the best preparation for integration. The Minister replied that it was not segregation for the children because they would be taught with other asylum seeking children. Perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to a number of formal investigations carried out by the Government's own body, the Commission for Racial Equality, as regards the transporting of children elsewhere for educational purposes in which such measures were found to be literally against the spirit of the race relations legislation. Is the Minister genuinely convinced that this ultimately helps those who settle in this country in terms of their integration in the community?
	Ideally, the Liberal Democrats would have preferred the choice of whether or not a child was educated in accommodation centre, with the LEA providing the education, or being the arbiter of who provides it. But, again, this was criticised by the Government on the grounds that it made LEAs the arbiter. I thought that they were the best people, because they have knowledge regarding the appropriate provision for individuals in a particular area.
	Despite our pleading with Ministers and our communications with the Home Secretary, we have been unable to convince the Government of the seriousness of the case for the LEA to make such provision. In the light of all these concerns, we are bound to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in his amendment.

Lord Elton: My Lords, on the Wednesday evening that this amendment was first moved by the right reverend Prelate I was attending a dinner meeting. I did so with a clear conscience because, at first sight, I thought it highly unlikely that the amendment would be carried into the Bill. In my state of mind at the time, it seemed to me that it should not be included in the legislation. It is a sad coincidence that the amendment has appeared again on this Wednesday night when I was due at exactly the same dinner party. In the interim, I have read the Report stage debate in the Official Report and my mind is now a great deal more open.
	I, too, have had experience of education not only as a recipient but also as a teacher—though in the secondary and primary sectors, not in higher education. Like other noble Lords, I believe that children are the prime concern in this issue. While not wishing to be in any way patronising or superior, I have to say that I believe the debate has become a little simplistic. It appears to assume that every school into which the child of a potential member of our society from abroad is received will be small, well-endowed, happy, and free—it seems—from bullying, and that every teaching facility set up in an asylum centre will be large, under funded, strict, and unfriendly. Life is not like that. Two of the years that I spent teaching took place in a comprehensive school with 1,500 children on a slum-clearance estate in Nottingham where bullying was endemic and where I once had a knife drawn on me. That was many years ago, well before that sort of thing came to be thought of as common.
	Recently I attended a fantastic conference set up by a Member of the other place—Diane Abbott. She is one of the black representatives of inner-city London. The aim of the conference was to consider what is happening to black children in London schools. I was one of 11 white faces there of about 1,000 people. What is happening to black children in inner London schools is horrifying. Some children report that they feel safer in a gang on the streets than they do in school. What, one parent asked, is it that turns the little cherubs we loved in our arms into gun gangsters?
	Something is very wrong with education in many inner London schools. I do not say that people are not doing a brilliant job in some of those schools and that some of them are not very good. But, please let us not think that all we have to do to a young person, or perhaps a very young person, without a word of English in order to make them feel safe, happy and at home is to put them into one of those schools. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I agree that it is not an either/or case.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The word that he has not used, but that I think is crucial here—I wonder whether he agrees with me—is "flexibility" as regards the Government not saying that the provision shall be in accommodation centres and society not saying that it shall be in schools but rather considering what is the best arrangement in a particular situation.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I was about to refer to subsection (1)(f) of Clause 26. The clause states:
	"The Secretary of State may arrange . . . to be provided to a resident of an accommodation centre . . . education and training".
	I refer to the word "may". It seems to me that the proper course is to have a base in the accommodation centre where children can be prepared—whatever length of time that may take—to enter whatever school is suitable within the district. If no suitable school is available but only schools where they would be either terrorised or neglected, they should stay in the accommodation centre until they reach their home, whether that be in this country or another. If there is a good school nearby, they may need very little preparation before entering it.
	If I was a traumatised child arriving in this country accompanied by my parents—we should remember that many of these children are unaccompanied—and as soon as I began to settle I was taken away from my parents, as was mentioned on Report, having already been frightened out of my wits by what had happened to me, I should not find that comforting at all. I should be terrified. If I was a teacher working under great pressure with a class that I had the greatest difficulty keeping in order, and to it was added two children with no word of the language that I spoke and I had no special needs assistance, I should think that that was highly damaging to the school.
	Both those circumstances have to be taken into account before a decision is made with regard to such children. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking with regard to the provision in subsection (1)(f) of Clause 26. What confidence can be reposed in the expectation that good education facilities will be provided in the accommodation centres? If he can give me reassurance on that point, I shall vote with the Government; if he cannot, I shall vote against the Government.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I abstained—I was not alone on these Benches in so doing—on these amendments at the previous stage. They were then numbered 34 and 35. Although I do not totally embrace the stance taken by my noble friend Lord Judd or that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, their interventions have been enormously valuable as they have led to meetings with my noble friend the Minister. As I understand the position, those meetings have resulted in a much better exposition by the Government of the intended relationship between what are now Clauses 31 and 32.
	As my noble friend Lord Judd said, we were shocked by the provision in subsection (2) of Clause 31, which states:
	"A child who is a resident of an accommodation centre may not be admitted to a maintained school".
	However, I believe that there is some substantial measure of flexibility in the clause that enables pragmatic solutions to be found. Therefore, I believe that the Government are moving sufficiently to be supported in this regard.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister and point out that my pendulum is still swinging. If children are fluent in English, could they go to a mainstream school? If children have special disabled needs, could they go to a school that caters for those needs? Surely there should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, flexibility if the child's interests are to be paramount.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I supported the right reverend Prelate on the previous occasion and the time before that, and I shall do so again as firmly as I can.
	After the latest concessions, which were dressed up a little by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I half expected the Government to rethink their policy. Almost all of their supporters in schools and the teaching unions have made it clear that there should be one education system in this country. Many Labour Back-Benchers said the same yesterday but we have not heard any real concessions.
	I accept that the occasional use yesterday and today of the word "segregation" is unfortunate but it shows the extent of exasperation among many parliamentarians—as well as voters—who cannot believe that their own government can be carrying out that policy. I heard the Minister today refer to the burden on the present system and a Minister in another place indirectly referred to the destruction of classes under the present system. I am surprised that such arguments are being made at this very late stage without much back-up.
	On the moral imperative, the right reverend Prelate said it all. I want to add a few more thoughts on the practical implications. I do not believe that separate education will work. I mentioned special needs last time. My noble friend Lady Masham would like to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that special needs will be met in schools. I am grateful to her for the letter that she wrote to me about that.
	It would be impossible to meet all of the curricula requirements even for those larger groups of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, mentioned the Liberal compromise that was offered; that is, that LEAs should decide how best to manage education in each centre. However, the Minister rejected that. I can only hope that he will reflect in the next few days still further. When those children eventually arrive in accommodation, the LEAs will be given a much fuller role.
	I turn to the Conservative position. I am dismayed to see the Conservative Benches empty. We heard from the Conservatives quite positively on this issue at earlier stages. The Conservatives have drawn back from the issues of education on the grounds that they are so closely linked with the time factor. I believe that they argued quite reasonably that if the Government can meet their targets of processing in a few weeks—none of the rest of us thinks that they can—there will not be any time for mainstream education. In a sense, the previous vote covered the present vote.
	The Conservatives are talking about more rapid dispersal—I heard the right honourable Oliver Letwin do so yesterday—perhaps through reception centres close to the port of entry or smaller centres. Mr Letwin used the phrase, "one stop shop centres". Unfortunately, those approaches are not part of the Government's thinking. It would be nice to hear from the Conservative Front Bench whether that approach represents the Conservative view; we have not heard it. I am sorry that the Government have not moved further towards the concept of smaller centres; that was being taken up with the Refugee Council.
	I listened last week to asylum-seeking children for the first time. I was very moved by what they had to say. A boy from Afghanistan said:
	"For all of us freedom from fear, the hope to rebuild our lives and be normal is most precious even if it is for a very short time . . . the main point is that we do not want to be treated differently from the rest of the society".
	My noble friend Lord Moser made that point most powerfully. All of those children said that they did not want to spend time only with other asylum-seeking children, who would be from similar—troubled—backgrounds. They saw school as a way of escaping unhappy memories and beginning to rebuild a normal life. They viewed the Government's proposals as a way of putting up new barriers rather than building bridges.
	I conclude with a brief statement from a representative of Save the Children. She said:
	"We have a duty to these young people—a duty to treat them with the same care, compassion, dignity and respect that we would want for our own children. Whether or not they remain in this country ... we should be able to ... say that during their time here we did everything we could for them; that we provided them with the services, the support, the care and the opportunities that every other child in this country has. If we cannot do that",
	she said,
	"we have failed them—failed some of the most vulnerable children in our society".

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I want to enter the debate briefly. I did not speak on the previous occasion we considered these issues. However, I abstained because I was unhappy with the phrase, already referred to this evening, in Clause 31(1) under the heading of "Education: general":
	"a resident of an accommodation centre shall not be treated as part of the population of a local education authority's area".
	I found the words "shall not" so inflexible and so rigid that I could not accept them. Therefore, I abstained. I then went to see my noble friends Lady Ashton and Lord Filkin and, as other noble Lords have said, they were extremely courteous. They listened to my difficulties and I believe that they have taken action on them.
	I want to return to the term "inflexible". I know that my noble friend Lord Judd, for whom I have tremendous admiration, does not consider that the matter of flexibility has gone far enough. I believe that it has. With the introduction of the new sentence and the cross-references from Clause 31 to 32, there is now enough flexibility for authorities to act for children who are able to enter our education system.
	I shall not repeat arguments about there being a certain stage for a child. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, such a child will have experienced traumatic experiences. Some may benefit from going into schools; some may not. I now believe that the Bill provides flexibility for each individual child. That is what we are discussing. We are not talking about a mass of children; we are talking about each child who comes forward. I believe that the Bill now allows each child to be considered in his or her own right, and that is why I shall support the Government this evening.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, this aspect of the Bill arouses tremendous emotion, and rightly so. It is a very crucial personal matter and I still wish to support the right reverend Prelate's amendment. We have been told that a move into temporary accommodation will take some time and will then be followed by another move. It is at that stage that schooling could be looked for.
	I return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because it is one I wanted to make myself. A week is a long time in a child's life. By that stage, he will want to move around. Children who are taught English in an accommodation centre will be taught it with a whole range of other children because it will be their second language. If they get into a school quickly, quite apart from the all-important role of learning with other children and feeling the atmosphere of the place, they will also be in a far better position to pick up the language. Children pick up languages very quickly from their peers, and the younger they are, the better.
	I am surprised at the level of support expressed for this amendment by the professionals. The NUT is strongly on side. I also refer to the Refugee Children's Consortium. I am glad to say that my own ex-organisation—I have just stood down as president of UNICEF UK—is part of that. Those organisations have a wealth of knowledge and understanding of children as they spend a great deal of time with them. I cannot but feel that this is important enough, despite the flexibilities that have been added to the Bill, to divide the House. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will do so.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, the hour is late so I shall be brief. A couple of years ago I was privileged to chair a commission that dealt with a number of issues, including asylum seekers and how their children should be educated. We looked at evidence on all sides including a comparative study of what happens in other countries. I want to share with the House one or two thoughts.
	The arguments that have been advanced by my noble friend Lord Filkin about why asylum seekers' children should be educated separately are good and I endorse them. At the same time they are one-sided and there are arguments on the other side. I shall give three good reasons why it is important that asylum seekers' children should be educated in mainstream schools.
	First, it is good for our children to know something about the world and what it means to be scarred by traumatic experiences. It expands their range of sympathy and gives them some understanding of the state of the world.
	Secondly, if asylum seekers' children were allowed to stay, mainstream education would be an invaluable experience for them and might facilitate their integration. If they were refused permission to stay, they would take away with them something of the greatness of our way of life. I cannot imagine a better advertisement for the British way of life than having been educated in our schools.
	Thirdly, when children are deeply scarred, it is extremely important for them to have a normal structured way of life, within a structured environment. It is not good for them to live with others who are similarly scarred and who are likely to end up aggravating each other's feelings of alienation.
	What should we decide? On the one hand, there are good reasons why it is important that the children should be educated in separate schools where they can provide some support to each other and where there are the advantages of scale. On the other hand, there are arguments that point in the other direction. The answer would appear to be, as was said earlier, flexibility. Children could be educated in either way, provided we allow for enough opportunities for breaking with the system and allowing them to be educated separately.
	However, flexibility turns out to be a tricky matter. Flexibility can lead to discretion. The Bill does not lay down clear criteria for deciding who should be educated where. Also such flexibility appears to assume that, all other things being equal, children should be educated separately and only in isolated cases should they be educated in mainstream schools. My research draws the opposite conclusion. Other things being equal, it is good for children to be educated in mainstream schools. Only when we feel that that is not to their advantage, or to the advantage of our children, may some provision need to be made to educate them separately.
	My feeling is that there is a great deal to be said for the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. As all the educational institutions have pointed out, and as my research and my commission's research indicate, it is good for asylum seekers' children to be educated in mainstream schools, but if it were to be shown that in certain cases an exception needed to be made, we may allow for flexibility.

Lord Bhatia: My Lords, I make a case for the teaching of English. I will share a couple of personal experiences about the teaching of English to teachers or to adults.
	About 40 years ago I was in a small village in Germany. I had come from East Africa for some training. My hosts were going to look after me for six months while I was training. They met me at the station and said: "We have a big problem here about how you will cope with the German language. We take it that you do not speak or understand German." I said: "Yes, you are absolutely right". My hosts told me, "For your information, you are probably speaking to the only English-speaking persons in this village".
	There was a dilemma about where to place me. How could I learn German quickly in the best possible way? To this day I remember the solution they found for me. They said: "We do not wish to send you to a quick German-speaking institution where you could pick up the language very quickly. We would recommend, if you agree"—and I agreed with them—"that you go and stay with a family who have three or four young children. You live with them. The parents and the children do not speak English, but you will learn your German very quickly from the children". Within a month I was able to converse reasonably well in the German language.
	The point I make is that the teaching of English here is a problem—as far as I can make out from noble Lords who have spoken earlier. I believe that if children in accommodation centres are sent to mainstream schools they will learn English much faster than if they are taught English in a separate school at the accommodation centre. Secondly, there is a double benefit, those children who go to mainstream schools and learn English quickly will be able to pass on that English to their parents who also need that language facility.
	I have personal experience as a member of the reception groups which met with the Uganda refugees who arrived here. Some of the people in the groups were also asylum seekers. I recall vividly a conversation that I had with some parents. They said: "We know we have a problem here". There were a couple of areas in the UK where advertisements had been taken out in the papers which stated:
	"Please don't send refugees from Uganda to our part of the country".
	The parents were saying, "We really do not have much hope for ourselves with the kind of reception that we read in the papers. Our only worry is that our children can be placed in the schools as quickly as possible. That is the main thing that we are concerned about".
	I believe that we need to take note of one matter. I have had some interesting conversations, both with the Minister as well as with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I feel that they should not look at the issue from the point of view of whether one is an asylum seeker or whatever. Let us remember that these children have not come here as asylum seekers or refugees. They have been brought here without understanding why they are here. They are children who have accompanied their parents. They do not understand whether they are asylum seekers or otherwise.
	Secondly, some children arrive on their own. Here again, they have not taken a decision to come to this country to seek asylum. Parents—and I know this from my experience from Africa and also from the subcontinent—who feel vulnerable to attack within their own countries and are not able to leave that country to seek asylum elsewhere, think first of their children. They send their children—in some cases, at the cost of their lives. They say, "We are not safe here, but we cannot do anything about it. Let's save our children and send them abroad to an asylum-seeking country and perhaps the UK".
	We must consider such children not as asylum seekers but as children who do not understand why they are here. All that they want to do is get on with their life. All that they want to do is to go and play and learn with their fellow young people in the country, instead of being locked up in an accommodation centre. That is how such children will see it. It is bad enough that they will be put in an accommodation centre, but they will also be placed in a school where they are separated from all other children.
	I beg your Lordships' House to consider the matter carefully. We are dealing with vulnerable children who have no idea why there are here. We must not look upon them as asylum seekers, refugees or anything else except children.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. He spoke from his personal experiences; there is nothing quite like that.
	I participate as a former Member of Parliament for an inner-London area. In that environment, I found that young children who mixed with other young children who talked to them and played with them, and from whom they were separated only by age and ability, were able to learn the language and impart that language to their parents. They benefited enormously from that.
	There is a great danger that children will be institutionalised in the bigger accommodation centres, whether they hold 750 people or fewer. That is a real danger. Why should they, innocents that they are, be institutionalised—imprisoned—by what they happen to see and what they witness? As a former Member of Parliament and as somebody who had a lot to do with the issue in my professional life, I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, said has a great deal of credibility. I ask my noble friend to say why the noble Lord and I are wrong.

Lord Joffe: My Lords, I shall ask the Minister four brief questions about flexibility. First, who will decide whether exceptional circumstances exist? Secondly, will the views of parents and children be taken into account? Thirdly, will there be any safeguards, such as a right of appeal? Fourthly, does the Minister think, on the basis of the Home Office's immense experience, that a significant number of cases with exceptional circumstances will arise? By significant, I have in mind something more than 25 per cent.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I am tending to move towards the Government's position on the matter. However, sitting here and thinking about the process over the past few weeks, I feel increasingly angry—I may be wrong to do so—that, although the White Paper was so long ago, it is only towards the very end that we have started to think about how education and health provision would work out in the centres. It typifies our problem with thinking about children. For so many years—until recently—we gave children so little thought in the context of our care system, for instance.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the debate tonight, like previous debates on the issue, has been led well by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth who exemplified its informed nature. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was right to charge these Benches with not having allowed a voice in this debate, but he was wrong to chide us in saying that we had no voice. We have taken an uncomfortable position throughout the debate in admitting that this is an excessively intractable problem. But overall what matters beyond anything else is that we take into account the interests of the children.
	When I was a magistrate and sat as a chair of the family court, we were trained to consider the interests of the child as paramount, from wherever they came; and that must be the case. But in policy terms there is a problem. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, as so often in these cases, illuminated the debate by confessing that she had changed her mind. If we can do nothing else by listening to a debate fully and carefully, we should have the courage to change our mind. I am grateful to my noble friend for her contribution.
	My right honourable friend Oliver Letwin in another place yesterday made the point that he is in two minds over the issue. He said,
	"Nobody in the House would claim that it makes sense to argue strenuously about whether a child who has just arrived in the country and may go home six weeks later should have separate or a mainstream education".
	He went on, I suspect speaking as a father,
	"We are all a bit queasy—indeed, some of us are more than a bit queasy—about the idea of children being educated separately for months or years".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 165.]
	We have heard from the Government how they have made strenuous attempts to reduce the amount of time spent in accommodation centres, for which we are grateful. They have a long way to go yet, but they have made a proper move on the matter.
	There is an intractable problem. On the Front Bench we take what appears to be the easy option, but is not, of abstention. But we make it clear to our Back-Benchers who have listened to the debate that we find no fault if they chose to make up their own minds and vote in their own way.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is at this time of night that the Chief Whip normally sidles up to me and whispers in my ear, "Keep it brief; no one's listening to you and you won't change their minds in any event". Despite that, I feel that it is proper to respond to some, if not all, of the issues raised during the debate.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has made some powerful contributions throughout her 13 or 14 days on the Bill. I have not always agreed with them, but I have frequently been forced to go away, think again and return with further argumentation. She put her finger on the matter when she reminded us of what many MPs relate to us from their experience in the Commons: in their constituencies this is not a problem-free status quo, either in terms of the interests of children of asylum seekers, or in terms of schools or other school children in those schools where this degree of turbulence is taking place.
	I again listened carefully to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, but he did not address the arguments about the difficulties of the current situation. One can say that we should throw more money at schools and we should try to minimise the problems of turbulence, but we cannot get around the problem of what happens to a child who is moved into a school for a short period and then has to be moved out again for the variety of reasons I gave when I spoke initially.
	The current situation is not good, and I make no apology for repeating what I said during the discussion on accommodation centres. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, is right that we should do right from the beginning. I should not be standing here now if I believed that what we are proposing as a trial was not right in principle, for the arguments I have set out. I gave those arguments—I shall not repeat them—in terms of the ability to give specialist support and tailored education for a short period while accelerating the decision-taking. Those families who go into accommodation centres have a number of considerable benefits compared with the experience of families who are moved two or three times around the country into dispersed accommodation.
	However, neither I nor the Government are so arrogant to believe that it is axiomatic and beyond proof that we might be wrong on that. We are not saying that we are now going to build 20 or 30 accommodation centres around the country and drive them in over the next two to three years come what may. We are saying that we will move forward cautiously and prudently and I would have expected some acknowledgement of the pragmatism of that position. We are basically saying that we will provide spaces for about 3,000 people; probably four or so accommodation centres. We will see how in practice whether what we believe will be a better system works.
	What I find almost irrational about the debate is the unwillingness to allow a trial of that kind to go ahead. It seems to me to beggar common sense when in many areas the current situation is so poor. We are seeking to conduct a small-scale experiment and then to evaluate it openly. I find it difficult to know how one operates in a world of public policy when one is not prepared to try to improve things in a variety of ways. But enough of that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moser, said that the way he was welcomed in Britain was good and the House recognises what an asset he has been to British society since then. Most of us have read of his work and his teaching over many years and have been pleased and proud to have done so. But he was accepted as a refugee when he arrived. We have 80,000 a year coming to us asking for refugee status and the sad fact is that most of those will not qualify under the Geneva Convention to remain here. That means that we must look at how we manage the situation.
	Yes, children should be in normal school as soon as possible, but as soon as possible is when we know that they are going to have a permanent place here. That is when the case for integration is strongest.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right, as often, to say that substantial numbers will still be educated in dispersed accommodation. According to my arithmetic, if we have, say, 150 children in four centres, we are not talking about many more than 500 children in accommodation centres being educated for the first few years. I do not know how many children we have in NASS accommodation, but we have 50,000 people in NASS accommodation and 20 per cent of them are families. So there is a large number.
	That is not an argument one way or the other, but in my view it is certainly an argument for sensible experimentation rather than completely shutting our minds to looking at whether we could make it better for children and better for the speed of decision-making which is in the interest of families and children.
	My noble friend Lord Judd rightly argued for flexibility. But flexibility is of two kinds. One is related to what we have said about special needs and recognises the requirement to pay attention to the needs of children. If the needs of children cannot be met within accommodation centres and the facilities that can be provided, they should not and must not be educated in accommodation centres. That I repeat.
	The other argument for flexibility is the one we have just debated; that is, having an open mind about whether we can make it better in different ways. It seems to me the height of inflexibility to say that we must dig in on the status quo and refuse to consider any other form of sensible public policy experimentation. I do not understand that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, as one of many distinguished former Home Office Ministers who have spoken in our debates, asked whether there would be reasonable provision. The Home Office and the DfES are discussing the amount of funding that needs to be provided to make the education in accommodation centres of good quality. It will be dealt with through the contract process, but the safeguards are that Ofsted will inspect every single education facility in the accommodation centres within their first year of operation. It will repeat inspections if it believes that to be necessary, or serve warnings under its powers. Therefore, there will be a strong Ofsted spotlight on them.
	Secondly, the statutory monitor in the Bill has a duty to inspect, including how the education facilities are working. Thirdly, the advisory group from the local community will go into the accommodation centre and it is meant to pick up on the concerns and experiences of people in there, including children. We therefore believe that there are some strong inspection safeguards.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I tend towards his point. How are we to know what the needs of these children are? I sense that very little is known about how we can thoroughly assess their needs.
	To return to my earlier point. We seem to have come very late in the day to a discussion of education, the health side of things and how social services will be involved. What has been said is welcome, but will the Minister say a little more about how the needs of children will be assessed so that they are not missed?

Lord Elton: My Lords, to supplement what the noble Earl has said, will the Minister link his remarks to the policy in Clause 32(3) whereby the Secretary of State gives guidance as to what is to be done when an accommodation centre certifies that a child needs to go to another school? I apologise for not giving notice of that question.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Perhaps I may address that point first and return to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
	I sought to signal that a whole range of inspection processes gives us confidence that the educational provision and the care in centres will be of a high standard.
	I turn briefly to the role of the LEA, which is germane to that question. First, the LEAs will have a role. We shall endeavour to encourage the local education authorities to put themselves forward as bidders to provide education in the centres. We know that a number of LEAs are keen to do so, either individually or in a consortium. We believe that there are great merits in that for all kinds of reasons, as the House will understand. It will be open to LEAs to do that as part of a wider LEA or local government consortium.
	The Bill provides absolute clarity as regards the power of local authorities to provide such services in accommodation centres. But even in a situation where the education on site is not provided directly by the LEA, we want to encourage links between the accommodation centre and the LEA. Even at a basic level this can involve the exchange of guidance, best practice or facilitation of visits to a school.
	As to Clause 32(3), if an assessment is made that a child's needs are better met outside the accommodation centre, the LEA has a responsibility to ensure educational provision outside the accommodation centre—which is as it should be.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I am trying to be helpful. The point is that that duty is influenced by the relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I am asking the Minister to give some indication as to how the Secretary of State would use guidance to establish what proportion of pupils or what kinds of pupils would receive this sort of provision.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I signalled some of the general principles at the beginning of this debate. I gave the instance of a child with high fluency in English, who was exceptionally gifted and who had special educational needs. Let us say, for example, that the child was at the point of taking the international baccalaureate in the country from which he or she had come. It would be almost self-evident in such cases that the interests of the child could be better met outside the accommodation centre. I am not ducking the question, but I cannot say much more than that at this stage. We should consider it crucial to deliver clear and strong advice to that effect to LEAs and accommodation centres as part of the pilot.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about the assessment of children's needs. He also suggested that we had been slightly tardy in these matters. I do not believe so. A White Paper setting out these provisions was published in February. A considerable amount of work has been undertaken between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the DfES. My noble friend Lady Ashton has been with me throughout these debates, partly because she is passionately interested in the development of good education in accommodation centres and partly because she believes that it is a right policy. So there is not a wafer between the Home Office and the DfES on the issue. Both departments think it to be right and in the interest of children.
	Finally, my noble friend Lord Judd asked whether I am just fielding the Government's line. No, I am not. I am a Minister, but I actually believe that what we are doing is right, sensible and sane. That is why I am speaking so clearly and strongly. I should be horrified if the House, despite the provision having been twice affirmed by the House of Commons, shut the door on what I consider to be intelligent public policy development and experimentation. That would strike me as the height of irrationality.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, today is the 58th anniversary of the death of William Temple, the wartime Archbishop of Canterbury and a valued former Member of this House. His name figures for minor commemoration in the Church calendar; we remembered him this morning in my chapel; and I shall quote briefly from the end of a book that he wrote in 1942 entitled, Christianity and Social Order. I shall be brief tonight: I realise that I have kept up all you Labour Peers. Do not worry, we shall have a vote, just let me conclude. Poor things!
	William Temple wrote:
	"Every child should have the opportunity of an education till he is of maturity so planned as to allow for his (or her) peculiar aptitudes and make possible their full development".
	I simply do not believe that the clause, however well intentioned, will realise that aim; in my view, it will seriously delay it.
	I shall briefly address one or two points made in the debate. I am grateful to all those who have contributed to it, however they vote. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, perhaps I am not the person to absolve her, but I am sure that she will be absolved. But the constituencies of the Members of Parliament voting against the Government last night contain many asylum-seeking children. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, implied that point and was perhaps less polite than I should be in noting that 42 Labour MPs voted against the Government.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, yes, simplistic is one way of interpreting the character of the debate. I do not believe that schools are perfect, but the existing system is where to start. On the question of flexibility, again I make the point—but I shall not speak Danish this time—in my book, "may not" is "must not". I am glad that flexibility has appeared, but we have had to beat it out of the Government and it is simply not enough. Legislating for flexibility can be a slippery business. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for his wise words: we should start with the norm and be flexible thereafter.
	In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I absolutely respect those who abstain. Perhaps those on the Conservative Benches will therefore be patient when bishops suspend judgment on certain matters. I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. (I am really turning the knife tonight; I am enjoying this. I hope that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches will buy me a gin afterwards!) I take the Minister's point about throwing money at schools, but the Government are throwing money at useless accommodation centres—or rather accommodation centres in a useless project. We bishops may have our heads in the air, but we jolly well have our feet on the ground. The signal that we are picking up from sensible, serious people involved in education is that the project is not good.
	As for not being willing to allow even a trial, I can answer only that, frankly, we mistrust its negativity. If such a small number of children are involved, why go to such lengths to provide for them as a norm? Adapt the status quo.
	We have heard some assurances tonight and it has been a good debate. But the clause is ill-founded because it is a Home Office policy into which educational provision has been made to fit. The clause is impractical, because our education system is already fully stretched. How is a new kind of teacher to be recruited for a 51-week year? It is a question of the allocation of resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. It is rather late in the day to get those, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said. The clause is not only ill-founded and impractical; it is unnecessary. Proper use can be made of special-needs provision by adapting it.
	Finally, the clause is wrong. This is not the way to treat children. Nothing I have heard tonight has persuaded me that "segregation" is an inaccurate description of what this measure is about. Segregation is not in the best interests of children. Having kept all your Lordships up so late, I must seek the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 84.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

25 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
	"Length of stay: family with children (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to consider whether accommodation should be provided for a person and his dependants outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where—
	(a) they have been residents of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations, and
	(b) at least one of the dependants is under 17. (2)The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to provide accommodation for a person and his dependants outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where—
	(a) they have been residents of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations,
	(b) at least one of the dependants is under 17, and
	(c) the person requests that he and his dependants be provided with accommodation outside an accommodation centre. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that where paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection apply to a person and his dependants, the Secretary of State must consult the person in the course of the consideration required by that subsection.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that where paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection apply to a person and his dependants, the Secretary of State must give the person an opportunity to make a request of the kind referred to in paragraph (c).
	(5) Where the Secretary of State provides accommodation outside an accommodation centre in pursuance of regulations under this section he shall take any necessary steps to ensure that residence in the accommodation provided does not breach a residence restriction within the meaning of section 21.
	(6) The Secretary of State may inquire into and decide a person's age for the purpose of regulations under this section.
	(7) Section 45 is subject to regulations under this section."
	The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 25 but propose Amendments Nos. 19A and 19B in lieu thereof.
	26 Insert the following new clause—
	"Length of stay: general (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to provide accommodation for a person outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where the person—
	(a) has been a resident of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations, and
	(b) requests the provision of accommodation outside an accommodation centre. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that where paragraph (a) of that subsection applies to a person the Secretary of State must give him an opportunity to make a request of the kind referred to in paragraph (b).
	(3) Where the Secretary of State provides accommodation outside an accommodation centre in pursuance of regulations under subsection (1) he shall take any necessary steps to ensure that residence in the accommodation provided does not breach a residence restriction within the meaning of section 21.
	(4) Section 45 is subject to regulations under this section."
	The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 26 but propose Amendments Nos. 19A and 19B in lieu thereof.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 to which the Commons have disagreed. I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 19.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 to which the Commons have disagreed—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

28 Clause 26, page 13, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre; and must provide a resident of an accommodation centre with access to legal advice from suitably qualified advisors."
	The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—
	28A Line 4, leave out from "centre;" to end of line 5
	28B Line 5, at end insert— "( ) The Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident of an accommodation centre has an opportunity to obtain legal advice before any appointment made by an immigration officer or an official of the Secretary of State for the purpose of obtaining information from the resident to be used in determining his claim for asylum."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28.
	Debates during the passage of the Bill have focused strongly on access to early legal advice as an important part of a swift and fair initial decision-making system that would reduce the scope for delay. During debate we have also made clear that residents would have access to legal advice and that, as part of the managed process that we will bring to accommodation centres, residents would be able to see a legal adviser prior to their initial asylum interview. Our commitment to this has always been clear.
	To confirm and deliver on this commitment, the amendment, in response to representations made at the previous stage of the Bill, requires the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident has an opportunity to obtain legal advice before the initial substantive asylum interview. This addresses clearly the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when the amendment was introduced; it focuses clearly on the initial stage. The asylum seeker will arrive at the accommodation centre knowing the date of the substantive asylum interview and will be able to see the legal adviser at the accommodation centre before this, assuming that he or she wishes to do so.
	Let me explain what we mean by "reasonable steps". We are all agreed that we want to cut out opportunities for delay, so we need to ensure that an amendment does not inadvertently allow a person to disrupt the system by failing to turn up for interview. We spoke about this on a number of occasions. I do not believe that noble Lords want to create opportunities for delay. The amendment as introduced in this House would, we believe, lead to the risk of challenge by persons who deliberately missed their interview with the legal adviser and then sought to delay their substantive asylum interview as a result. Because we do not want that to happen, what we have introduced makes our obligations clear—the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident has an opportunity to obtain legal advice.
	Oliver Letwin accepted in another place that it was the best he could persuade the Government to provide. Half a crumb is better than none, and it was accepted and received with gratitude.
	The amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons tabled today by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, seeks to add to the amendments. In particular, it seeks to require the Secretary of State to ensure that a resident has a reasonable opportunity to obtain and consider legal advice and has a reasonable opportunity to have an adviser present at the appointment. Genuinely, I do not believe that takes us any further. It is not clear to me what,
	"a reasonable opportunity to . . . consider legal advice",
	might mean in practice. Again, I would have concerns that a resident would be able to use that to delay the substantive interview—if, for example, he claimed to need more time to consider the advice. It will of course be open to advisers not to attend the interview with the resident. We do not want to discourage this, but nor would we want to insist on this in case it caused further delay.
	The second part of the amendment deals with the quality of advisers. We are also agreed that the quality of legal advice must be guaranteed. All solicitors and advice agencies holding contracts with the Legal Services Commission are checked to ensure that they meet certain standards and provide a quality service. The Community Legal Service logo is a special mark of quality to affirm that. To provide advice on immigration and asylum matters, solicitors and advice agencies must have a contract in that specific category. The legal advice available must be independent; otherwise the quality mark will not be awarded. So we do not believe that there is any need for that part of the amendment.
	I hope that the House recognises that we have made substantial movement towards acknowledging the representations made by noble Lords—particularly the noble Earl, Lord Russell—at previous stages. For those reasons, we do not think that further amendments are necessary, but we have accepted the thrust of the noble Earl's previous representations and have been pleased to do so.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28.—(Lord Filkin.)

Earl Russell: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28, leave out "Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28" and insert "Amendment No. 28A but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28B and do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
	28CLine 5, at end insert— "(2B) The Secretary of State shall ensure that a resident of an accommodation centre has a reasonable opportunity to obtain and consider legal advice from a person who meets the requirements of subsection (2C) before any appointment made by an immigration officer or an official of the Secretary of State for the purpose of obtaining information from the resident to be used in determining his claim for asylum and to have such a person present at the appointment.
	(2C) A person meets the requirements of this subsection if he is a qualified person or an exempt person within the meaning of section 84 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and, if applicable, the advice falls within the scope of—
	(a) his registration if he is registered under section 84(3) or,
	(b) his certificate if he holds a certificate under section 84(5) of that Act." "

Earl Russell: My Lords, as when some well-graced actor leaves the stage, the eyes of men are idly bent on him that enters next. I guarantee that I shall not detain the House as long as we were detained on the last amendment.
	As the Minister said, this amendment is a concession and as such it is to be welcomed. But I hope that the Minister understands that it is the duty of Oppositions to look gift horses in the mouth. The amendment is good. It reads well. But one must ask James Bond's question of whether,
	"it reads better than it lives".
	I hope to probe its meaning a little further, and that the Minister will be in a position to satisfy me.
	A lot depends on the meaning that the Government attach to the word "opportunity". There is obviously here a serious problem. I was struck very much by some of the examples quoted in another place by Mr. Letwin. He came across cases of individuals who had two or three different Home Office records in slightly different names. In such cases he said that different decisions are sometimes made in relation to two or three different sets of records about the same person.
	One is tempted to ask the question with which the Sadducees tempted Christ at the Resurrection:
	"Who's wife shall she be?".
	What is to happen when there are three different decisions about the same person? That is the sort of thing that proper legal representation from the beginning ought to prevent.
	The Minister in another place had several objections. One was to the words "suitably qualified". Frankly, I understand. I have had that question in my mind myself. Since then, I have been better advised. We have taken the decision, since I have been better advised, for a more precise definition: that the adviser should be from those who are approved by the Immigration Commission registrar under the 1999 Act. That criterion is one that the Government themselves have constructed and which I hope therefore they will not think is in any way intended to obstruct them.
	The Minister said that there was a danger that the amendment might inadvertently allow a person to disrupt the system by failing to turn up for an interview. The Minister in this place inadvertently omitted the word "inadvertently". If the amendment were to have that effect, it would be very inadvertent indeed. That would be totally contrary to our intention in laying the amendment and, as far as I can see, totally contrary to the meaning of the English language.
	The word that we used was "access"; the word that the Minister in another place used in the Government's amendment is "opportunity". We meant those words to mean the same thing. If that is also the case with the Government, then we are in agreement. But the question is how far that agreement goes. Clearly, as my honourable friend Mr Hughes remarked, it is not enough to give people the addresses of the Refugee Council, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre and then go ahead and arrange an interview without doing anything more. Can the Minister say how he will interpret a "reasonable time"? As the Government are using that phrase, we are entitled to ask how it will be interpreted. Further, is the length of time that is a "reasonable time" recognised to be affected by how many days within that period are working days, how many are public holidays and how many are weekends?
	Will a "reasonable time" be affected by the supply of lawyers in the area concerned? Will it be recognised that a "reasonable time" may be longer in a case of complexity involving either a language for which interpreters are in very scarce supply or one involving, say, mental health disabilities or torture, where there is a clear difficulty in getting adequate testimony in the time available? Are the Government prepared to recognise that their normal assumption of delivery in two working days after posting is now totally inadequate? Nothing posted on Friday can be counted on reaching me across London in under five days, as my Whips' Office knows very well. That view is simply out of date.
	We have accepted, with gratitude, Commons Amendment No. 28A, which I believe does rather better what we sought to achieve. However, we are worried by what the Government mean by the word "reasonable" in Amendment No. 28B, so we have provided Amendment No. 28C as an alternative. This would allow for a "reasonable opportunity" to obtain legal advice before the Home Office goes ahead with an interview. We are concerned that the interview should not take place before the person has had a good chance to obtain legal advice. We do not say that people must take that opportunity; we do not say that failure to take that opportunity should prevent the interview. We say that failure to give that opportunity should provide a reason for postponing the interview.
	Finally, can the Minister reassure me that our interpretation of these provisions and the Government's is very much the same? I hope that the answer to that question is yes. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment Not 28, leave out "Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B to Lords Amendment No. 28" and insert "Amendment No. 28A but do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28B and do propose Amendment No. 28C in lieu thereof.—(Earl Russell.)

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, with respect to Amendment No. 28B, I entirely endorse the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I have one question for the Minister. Amendment No. 28B says:
	"The Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a resident of an accommodation centre has an opportunity to obtain legal advice"—
	I need go no further. In construing this amendment, would it be reasonable of me to insert between the words "obtain" and "legal" the expression, "access to subsidised"?

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for tabling Amendment No. 28B, especially for the inclusion of the words,
	"an opportunity to obtain legal advice before any appointment"—
	a point that I endeavoured to make during a previous stage of the Bill. The amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may be better still; I do not know. At least, I hope that we can settle for Amendment No. 28B.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, first, I wish to address the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the meaning of "opportunity". It is a slightly philosophical question; therefore, I approach it with caution. There is a danger of tautology here. We shall ensure that an accommodation centre resident has a real opportunity; that is, sufficient time to seek and take up legal advice prior to the date of the initial interview for determining the asylum claim.
	The statute places a duty on the Secretary of State, or his agents in the accommodation centre, to demonstrate that they have acted reasonably. I shall not be drawn on the exact number of days that may be involved as that will depend on the circumstances. Clearly, a sufficient number of qualified lawyers have to be available; otherwise, the test will not be met. The complexity of a case might have a bearing on the matter if, for example, evidence was required of torture or other such matters. I do not say that it would be required automatically but it is perfectly possible that it might be. Therefore, a Secretary of State or his agent acting reasonably would have to take those factors into account. Mental health factors might also have a bearing on the amount of time that was needed.
	The interview would not take place before the asylum seeker had had a reasonable opportunity to receive legal advice. That may appear to be a circular argument but it is not intended to be so. The statute places a real burden of responsibility on people who are exercising the judgment that we are discussing. They should be looking over their shoulder at the fact that there is a legal duty on the Secretary of State to provide that opportunity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked about access to subsidised legal advice. I do not believe that that is necessary as, in practice, all residents of accommodation centres will, by definition, be destitute. Therefore, legal advice will be provided to meet the responsibility that the Secretary of State is effectively imposing on himself through the clause. Therefore, the question is otiose.
	As regards qualified advisers, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will accept that the amendment is necessary, as those who have the LSC quality mark will, by definition, come within the terms of the amendment. That, therefore, provides the security that he seeks.
	I have one or two further points. As regards sufficiency of supply of legal advisers, the Secretary of State is required to be reasonable. We shall provide legal advisers on site via the Legal Services Commission. If an asylum seeker is, through no fault of his own, unable to take up legal advice before the interview date, we shall consider on a case-by-case basis whether the interview should be rearranged. I hope that that is helpful. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords on those matters.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful but I hope that, before the Minister sits down, I may ask him a further question that I should have asked. Roughly what sort of length of notice will be given to the applicant of the date the interview is arranged for? The Minister said that applicants would be given reasonable notice. How long roughly would that be?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I say from recollection that when an asylum seeker is in an induction centre and a determination has been made that he will be given support in an accommodation centre, he will be told at the induction centre the date of the proposed interview in an accommodation centre. He therefore then has to move to the accommodation centre. I would expect that there will be at least a week between the date on which they were notified in the induction centre of when they will have their initial interview, and the initial interview taking place. If I am wrong—I am slightly on my own on this point at the moment—I shall write to the noble Earl. In fact, that is right.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, who answered with great care and considerable thought. I accept that many of these issues may well affect the amount of time that should be allowed rather than that they will necessarily so affect it. That is the real world. I also hope that he accepts that when an interview is held without the applicant having received advice, one would want to be very certain that that was due to the applicant's acts of omission rather than to any failure on the Government's part. That is the point that should be monitored. The Minister's intentions in this regard are benevolent. It is important to all of our objectives that this should be got right.
	I believe that the Minister has made a sincere and genuine attempt to do his best, which is all that any of us can do. I thank him warmly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 28C, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

38Leave out Clause 31 The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	38A Page 16, line 7, at end insert "(subject to section 32)"
	38B Page 16, line 20, at end insert "(subject to section 32)"
	38C Page 16, line 25, leave out "316(3)" and insert "316(2) and (3)"
	38D Page 16, line 32, at end insert "(subject to section 32)"
	38E Page 17, line 14, leave out "person" and insert "body"
	[Amendment No. 38F not moved.]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38A to 38E to the words so restored to the Bill. I spoke to these amendments on Amendment No. 20.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38A to 38E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

39 Clause 32, leave out Clause 32 The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
	39A Page 17, line 29, at end insert "on the grounds that his special circumstances call for provision that can only or best be arranged by the authority"
	[Amendment No. 39B not moved.]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 39 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39A to the words so restored to the Bill. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 20.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 39 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

41 Clause 33, page 18, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) section (Length of stay: family with children)," The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	41A Because the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed.

LORDS AMENDMENT

42 Page 18, leave out line 28 The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	42A Because the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed.

LORDS AMENDMENT

44 Page 18, line 35, after "section" insert "(Length of stay: family with children), (Length of stay: general) or" The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	44A Because the amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 to which the Commons have disagreed.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 41A, 42A and 44A. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 19.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 41A, 42A and 44A.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

45 After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
	"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 2
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part." The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	45A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.

LORDS AMENDMENT

88 After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
	"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 3
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part." The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	88A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 45 and 88 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 45A and 88A. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 16.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 45 and 88 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 45A and 88A.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

99 Clause 58, page 32, line 19, leave out "may" and insert "shall" The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	99A Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 99 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 99A.
	It may be helpful if I explain the reasons for the Government's resistance to your Lordships' amendment; namely, the travel expenses incurred by those complying with a reporting restriction shall, as opposed to "may", as it was in the original power, be met. A duty to pay travelling costs in all cases would add unnecessarily to the overall costs to the taxpayer because there would be no control over whether it was reasonable to pay the costs in the first place or whether the travel cost claimed was at a reasonable level.
	A duty to pay in all circumstances could lead to absurd results. For example, we would have a duty to pay the travel expenses of a person who lived within walking distance, even if he travelled by taxi or some other, perhaps more expensive, means of transport. Also, if there were a duty to pay in all circumstances, we would have to pay even if someone clearly had their own means to pay; for example, if a person was in employment.
	Until recently, those required to report had to attend their local police station. That meant that the distance from a person's home to the place of reporting was reasonable and that the costs of travel, if any, were low. However, as a consequence of the Government's commitment to a more managed asylum process, asylum seekers are now more likely to be required to report to an immigration officer—perhaps at a reporting centre. We believe that that is more efficient. Immigration officers are clearly better placed to perform that service; they can make decisions based on the most up-to-date information; and they can give asylum seekers information about their claim.
	The change also has the beneficial effect of allowing police officers to concentrate more on their core tasks of policing and catching criminals. In our view, police officers cannot and should not be expected to be able to provide the same service as immigration officers.
	To allow for this provision, a number of reporting centres have been established and it is planned that more may open in the future. That is certainly our thinking. It is reasonable to expect asylum seekers who are seeking protection in the United Kingdom to comply with the asylum process, including a requirement to report. But we accept that for some—particularly asylum seekers in receipt of support—the costs of travel to comply with a reporting restriction may be prohibitive. It is in those cases that we intend to meet the costs of travel.
	We have not previously provided for travel costs. Therefore, this is a new approach from the Government. If we were to go with the amendment and if this House were to insist on its original position, essentially we should be obliged to sign up to a very open-ended commitment. No government should do that; it is not the way that government should work. It would be a blank cheque. We believe that it would be very costly and we do not believe that that is the right approach.
	Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment. We believe that we have put in place a reasonable, fair and flexible provision. The amendment is inflexible. It would place an absolute duty in all circumstances and we should be obliged to conform to that. We do not consider the amendment to be reasonable and we suggest to your Lordships that we should not support it.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 99 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 99A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He has gone into somewhat more helpful detail than perhaps he was able to do in Committee when I moved this amendment.
	I was particularly interested in the point that he made concerning a person who would have to travel a short distance but who would not need to incur travelling expenses. If such a person could have walked but took a taxi, that would obviously be an abuse of claiming travel expenses. That was not quite the way that the Minister expressed the matter in Committee when I envisaged him thinking that people would claim for shoe leather. That was what drove me to think that the answer from the Minister was less than satisfactory.
	I am also grateful to him for addressing the issue of those who are destitute. Such people are, after all, being forced to report; they do not have a choice in the matter. I believe that the noble Lord has addressed my concerns in his response.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

104 Clause 61, page 34, line 3, leave out from "is" to end of line 5 and insert "convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence, and either—
	(a) the offence is one for which the maximum period of imprisonment is ten years or more, or
	(b) the offence has been specified for the purpose of this subsection under subsection (3A)." The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 104 but proposed Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof—
	104A Page 34, line 13, at end insert— 
	(a) he is convicted of an offence specified by order of the Secretary of State, or
	(b) he is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence and the Secretary of State certifies that in his opinion the offence is similar to an offence specified by order under paragraph (a). (3B) An order under subsection (3A)—
	(a) must be made by statutory instrument, and
	(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	104B Page 34, line 14, leave out "or (3)" and insert ", (3) or (3A)"
	104C Page 34, line 16, leave out "or (3)" and insert ", (3) or (3A)"
	104D Page 34, line 31, leave out "or (3)" and insert ", (3) or (3A)"
	104E Page 34, line 35, leave out "or (3)" and insert ", (3) or (3A)"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 104 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof.
	The other place have disagreed to Lords Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 and they have also disagreed with Lords Amendment No. 109 and restored Amendments Nos. 109A to 109D.
	In putting forward Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E the other place have listened carefully to the thoughtful and helpful contributions that your Lordships, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, have made to the debate on how to define who is a particularly serious criminal.
	The effect of the amendments made yesterday is as follows. We now have a clause which contains a two part definition of who is presumed to be a danger to the community. Both parts of the definition allow the person to whom it is supplied to rebut it on appeal. One part reflects the clause as it was originally drafted, so that a serious criminal, presumed to be a danger to the community, will be anyone who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years or more. As I have explained before, we believe that the actual sentence imposed is the best general measure of seriousness because it takes full account of the individual nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. We have had that discussion several times and I shall not develop that further.
	However, the other part of the definition draws upon an idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which many of your Lordships have favoured. Its value was acknowledged yesterday by my honourable friend the Home Secretary. That is that the Secretary of State should be in a position to specify in an order offences which, whatever the length of sentence imposed, by their very nature connote such a degree of seriousness that conviction of one of them would be appropriate to create a presumption that the offender is a danger to the community. For such serious crimes one would of course expect a sentence of well in excess of two years to be imposed but I accept the point that we should cater for those rare situations where a shorter sentence is imposed.
	To achieve that we have therefore inserted into the clause an order-making power which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested. We will of course work closely with the Scottish Executive before making an order to ensure when listing any offences that there is equivalent treatment both sides of the Border. As your Lordships will know the criminal law in Scotland differs from that in England and Wales, having a wider range of offences covered by common law. It will be possible under this order-making power to cater for these differences.
	On the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the Government believe that Clause 61 as amended last night is the right way to proceed. We think that it is right to set a tough criterion of seriousness. It should be remembered that, whatever the nature of the crime, no refugee is at risk of removal if on appeal to the independent authorities he rebuts the presumption that he is a danger to the community.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has put forward a number of proposed amendments as alternatives to Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E. Their effect would be to define a particularly serious crime so narrowly as to make the possible application of the clause very rare indeed. I do not believe that the public would understand why, for example, a sentence of nine years for rape or a maximum sentence of seven years for child abduction would not be regarded as a particularly serious crime. Yet that appears to be the position that would be the consequence of the noble Lord's amendments.
	The amendments would also alter the clause from being a firm definition of how Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention is to be applied to being merely a guide to construction. That would lose the elements of certainty and clarity that we want to achieve in this clause, so that is another reason why we could not accept the amendments.
	The noble Lord has also put down an amendment to reinstate Amendment No. 109, which deleted the definitional provision in subsection (9)(b). I think that subsection is necessary. In order that Article 33(2) can be applied effectively in the light of Clause 61, the clause must refer to the different types of offender who may fall within its scope and provide for the different types of disposal by the courts and for the different types of institution where offenders may be detained.
	The wording of subsection (9)(b) also links with the Government's two years or more actual sentence criterion. It is essential that it is retained. Otherwise the application of Article 33(2) would lead to problems in the courts.
	We have understood the reservations which certain of your Lordships have about the possibility of Article 33(2) being applied to people who are convicted of an offence and who, in view of their mental disorder, are made subject to a hospital order. Very few hospital order cases are likely to arise in the context of Article 33(2). I accept that it is possible that there will be a case where a person needing to be detained for hospital treatment has been convicted of a minor offence—for example shoplifting—which would not usually involve a two year sentence and/or a case where the danger that the person poses is more to themselves than to the community.
	However, we have to provide in this clause for hospital order cases because people in this category could be a danger to the community on release from detention. We must ensure that an exceptional and compelling case for removal is not jeopardised by the fact that a hospital order has been imposed rather than imprisonment.
	It has always been our position that we would take real care when seeking to rely on this presumption in such circumstances. I would reiterate that a decision to apply Article 33(2) in a hospital order case would not be made without the most thorough examination of the person's personal circumstances, overall state of health and other relevant factors. The Secretary of State has a discretion whether or not to issue a certificate under this clause and he would not do so if he did not consider that Article 33(2) was applicable. If we decided to apply Article 33(2) in a case of this kind, it would of course be a decision which could be challenged on appeal, as with any certificate issued under these clauses. For those reasons I beg to support the amendment as made and to suggest that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, are not appropriate.
	Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 104 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof.—(Lord Filkin.)

Lord Goodhart: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 104 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof, leave out from "and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof" and insert ", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof and do propose the following amendments in lieu of the Commons amendments—
	104FPage 34, line 1, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert— "(2) This section applies as an aid to the construction and application of Article 33(2) (exclusion from protection) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its Protocol.
	(3) A person shall be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime and to constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom if—
	(a) he is convicted of an offence specified by order of the Secretary of State and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least ten years, or
	(b) he is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least ten years and the Secretary of State certifies that in his opinion the offence is similar in character to an offence specified by order under paragraph (a) and that the person could have been sentenced to a period of at least ten years had his conviction been a conviction in the United Kingdom for that similar offence. (4) A reference to a person who is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least two years—
	(a) does not include a reference to a person who receives a suspended sentence (unless at least ten years of the sentence are not suspended); and
	(b) includes a reference to a person who is sentenced to an indeterminate period of custody (provided that it may last for 10 years). (5) The Secretary of State may by order specify an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of subsection (3).
	(5A) An order under subsection (5)—
	(a) must be made by statutory instrument; and
	(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (5B) A presumption under subsection (3) that a person constitutes a danger to the community is rebuttable by that person.
	(5C) A presumption under subsection (3) does not apply while an appeal against conviction or sentence—
	(a) is pending, or
	(b) could be brought (disregarding the possibility of an appeal out of time with leave)."
	104GPage 34, line 31, leave out "(2) or"
	104HPage 34, line 35, leave out "(2) or" "

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 104F to 104H standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 109E. That will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Avebury.
	Amendment No. 104 and the associated Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E were totally inadequately discussed in the other place last night. Some noble Lords may feel that some of the debates on some of the earlier clauses or amendments have been unduly prolonged. That may be the case. It is certainly better to do that than to cut short an important debate in the way that it was cut short under the rules of the other place.
	The removal of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the addition of the further amendments in Amendment Nos. 104A to 104E, make the situation of refugees considerably worse than when the Bill was first introduced. The original Bill proposed that "serious crime" meant a crime for which a sentence of at least two years was imposed. In other words, the crime was serious by reason of the actual circumstances of an actual crime, leading to a sentence of two years.
	The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, altered the basis and proposed that "serious crime" meant a crime for which a maximum sentence of at least 10 years could be imposed. In other words, the crime was serious by reason of the type of crime to which it belonged, irrespective of the actual facts of the case or the sentence imposed. Amendments tabled at Third Reading added power to add by order certain crimes as particularly serious, irrespective of the maximum length of the sentence.
	If the government amendment stands, we shall be left with the worst of both worlds. Someone will be presumed—and this part of the presumption is irrebuttable—to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime if they have been sentenced to two years' imprisonment for any crime. They will also be presumed to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime if they have been convicted of any specified offence, even if the actual offence involved mitigating factors of such strength as to mean that no punishment or only an insignificant punishment was imposed; and again even if the conviction was made abroad by courts whose decisions are directed by the Government or liable to be influenced by corruption. Finally, the offences can be specified by the negative resolution procedure which we believe is entirely inappropriate for something that has this significant effect.
	Our amendments go back to the concept of the length of sentence as an essential test of the seriousness of the crime. The crime must be specified in an order approved by the affirmative resolution procedure, and the actual sentence must be at least 10 years.
	I accept that the 10-year period is too high. It might be better to make the test a sentence of five or, perhaps, seven years. However, we believe that two years is too short. We also believe that, as our amendment provides, the definition of a serious crime should be a guide to the interpretation of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, not a free-standing definition. Otherwise, there is a severe risk that we might end up with our courts being forced to accept an interpretation of Article 33(2) that is not consistent with a generally accepted interpretation of that article.
	The amendments in my noble friend's name are fairer and are more likely to satisfy the requirements of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention than the test that the Government want to apply. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 104 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof, leave out "and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof" and insert", do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E and do propose Amendments Nos. 104F to 104H in lieu thereof.—(Lord Goodhart.)

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall speak, in particular, to Amendment No. 109 and Amendments Nos. 109A to 109E.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his careful explanation of the reasons why the power must be extended to persons who are the subject of a hospital order. However, I say, with great respect, that he took the matter no further than he did at Third Reading. We were not satisfied with the reasons that he gave then. I shall explain why.
	Three principles underlie the applicability of Article 33(2). First, it should be restrictively interpreted and applied; secondly, it must be judged case by case; and, thirdly, the burden of proof lies principally on the state. The Minister said that there would be few hospital orders to which the section applied. That makes the case for individual consideration even stronger.
	Can the Minister say how Article 33(2) is used at the moment? As I understand it, if a person is convicted of a serious offence, the court can make a recommendation for that person's deportation. At that point, the Secretary of State must consider whether Article 33(2) comes into play. The Minister may say that, sometimes, the courts do not make such a recommendation and that, in such cases, the Secretary of State would have no power to invoke Article 33(2). However, if they recognise that they can do that and that the decision on whether someone can be deported from the United Kingdom turns on whether the recommendation is made—the Secretary of State has no right to consider the matter, unless there is a recommendation by the court—the courts are capable of applying that power. That is particularly so in the few cases that, the Minister said, were the subject of hospital orders.
	At Third Reading, the Minister said that it was reasonable to have a presumption that such persons—persons subject to a hospital order under Section 37 of the 1983 Act—were a danger to the community but that that presumption could be rebutted. He also said on the same occasion, and he has repeated today, that a decision to apply Article 33(2) in a hospital case would not be made without the most thorough examination of personal circumstances, overall state of health and other relevant factors. How can he reconcile that with the presumption in the clause that Article 33(2) does apply, which has to be rebutted by the person concerned?
	How can the examination of all those factors take place unless there is an objection to the application of Article 33(2) to which the Minister can address his mind? Does he do that of his own volition irrespective of whether the person has made an application, and, as we are considering persons subject to a hospital order, does the Minister think that it will be possible for that to be done by the person of his own volition, considering that he is not deemed fit to plead in court?
	The Minister acknowledged that a hospital order can be made by a court after a relatively minor offence and he has repeated the two examples he gave on Third Reading of shoplifting or taking a motor vehicle without consent. He said that the key issue is not the offence, but whether a person needs to be detained for hospital treatment. The right of a person to have his application for asylum considered will be forfeited, not because he has committed a serious offence as provided for in the convention, but because he is mentally ill. That must surely be a violation of Article 33(2).
	UNHCR said at an earlier stage, and has repeated, that the broad nature of this provision covers people who have been neither convicted of a particularly serious crime nor even tried in relation to a charge of such a crime. In parentheses, we hear from Mr Blunkett that he is going to go ahead with the draft mental health Bill, which provides that a person can be detained without having committed any offence. As I understand it, if that comes into force, such a person would be subject to the provisions we are discussing now. In other words, someone can have committed no crime whatever, but Article 33(2) will be invoked and he will be deemed to be a person who is not a refugee.
	I discussed the matter with Mind today. My impression from the short conversation was that the Home Office or the Department of Health—whichever it is—has not discussed the matter with it. From my description of the provision which the Minister puts before the House, it strongly disagrees. I must protest that the Home Office shoves through such a provision without discussing it at all with the principal agency working on behalf of mental health patients.
	I know that we are at a late stage in the Bill and I shall not get anywhere with these amendments, but pushing the matter through against the interests of mental health patients is fundamentally wrong and contrary to the convention.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome the Government's conversion to the view that I had the honour to advance in Committee in July. I also welcome the generous admission made by the Home Secretary yesterday in another place in respect of the position hitherto adopted by the Government:
	"I recognise that that is unacceptable".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/02; col. 191.]
	The Home Secretary's statement plainly shows the value of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber. These provisions were undebated in another place. Had they not been scrutinised and amended in your Lordships' House then we would not have arrived at the position where the Government have recognised the anomalies in their original proposal and tabled the amendments before the House today.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, at this time of night and for many reasons I shall not disagree with the broad thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It is in part because one recognises that it has considerable value even though we do not always agree on many issues.
	On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I shall not repeat what I said when I spoke to the amendment. I recognise the argumentation but at heart the Government differ from that stance for the reasons I set out.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as ever, tested me hard at this time of night on a number of issues. I will attempt to answer a number of them but I hope he will not consider me churlish if I say that they require more consideration than I can give off the cuff. Therefore, he is owed a thoughtful and reflective reply after I have reflected on the matters further.
	As I indicated previously, we are not aware of any cases of a person subject to a hospital order having Article 33(2) applied to them. However, if a person has committed an offence and is subject to a medical order—and both points need to be in operation—there is nothing in the present law which prevents the Secretary of State considering deportation on conducive grounds and, if so, whether Article 33 of the Refugee Convention would prevent removal.
	The effect of Clause 61 is to create a presumption that Article 33 would not prevent a removal. But that presumption is rebuttable and we would, as I stressed earlier, have to consider and would want to do so on a case-by-case and individual basis.
	On his point about a draft mental health Bill, he asked whether, where no offence has been committed and an individual can be retained, that invoked Article 33(2) by virtue of the clause. No, because Clause 61(2) requires the conviction of an offence and a sentence to be imposed, as I implied when I spoke earlier on those points.
	Those are in the nature of initial responses. As regards the other points, I will ensure that I reply within the week when have I inspected Hansard to see whether we have addressed them all. I am fairly sure that I have not.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I regret that we are faced with a situation in which an attempt to make the lot of refugees facing deportation somewhat easier has concluded by making their situation worse. Had it been possible to do anything about it, I would have wished to divide the House. Plainly, it is not and in that case I beg the leave of the House to withdraw the amendments standing in my noble friend's name.

Amendment No. 104F to 104H, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

105 Page 34, line 8, leave out from "if" to end of line 13 and insert "he is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence, and either—
	(a) the offence is one for which the maximum period of imprisonment under the law of any part of the United Kingdom in respect of an offence that is similar in character is ten years or more, or
	(b) the offence is similar in character to an offence that has been specified for the purpose of this subsection under subsection (3A)." The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 105 but proposed Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof.
	106 Page 34, line 13, at end insert— "(3A) The Secretary of State may by order specify an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom for the purpose of subsections (2) and (3).
	(3B) An order under subsection (3A) may provide that the offence is specified for the purpose of—
	(a) subsection (2) only;
	(b) subsection (3) only;
	(c) both subsections (2) and (3) (3C) An order under subsection (3A) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 106 but proposed Amendments Nos. 104A to 104E in lieu thereof.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 to which the Commons have disagreed. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 104.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

109 Page 34, line 42, leave out paragraph (b) The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
	109A Page 34, line 47, leave out "a period of custody" and insert "detention, or ordered or directed to be detained,"
	109B Page 34, line 48, after "prison" insert "(including, in particular, a hospital or an institution for young offenders),"
	109C Page 35, line 1, after second "to" insert "imprisonment or detention, or ordered or directed to be detained, for"
	109D Page 35, line 2, leave out "of custody"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 109 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109A to 109D to the words so restored in the Bill. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 104.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 109 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 109A to 109D to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Filkin.)

[Amendment No. 109E not moved.]
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

126 After Clause 68, insert the following new clause—
	"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 4
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part." The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	126A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.

LORDS AMENDMENT

192 After Clause 101, insert the following new clause—
	"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 5
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part." The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	192A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.

LORDS AMENDMENT

216 After Clause 123, insert the following new clause—
	"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 6
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part." The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	216A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.

LORDS AMENDMENT

224 After Clause 136, insert the following new clause—
	"Disapplication of section (Consequential and incidental provision) in relation to Part 7
	Section (Consequential and incidental provision) shall not apply to this Part." The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
	224A Because the power to make consequential and incidental provision should not be restricted in the manner proposed.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 126, 192, 216 and 224 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 126A, 192A, 216A and 224A. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 16.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 126, 192, 216 and 224 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 126A, 192A, 216A and 224A.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

225Before Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
	"Consequential and incidental provision (1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision which he thinks necessary in consequence of or in connection with a provision of this Act.
	(2) An order under this section may, in particular—
	(a) amend an enactment;
	(b) modify the effect of an enactment. (3) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
	(4) An order under this section which amends an enactment shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(5) Any other order under this section shall be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
	225A Line 3, leave out "provision which he thinks necessary in consequence of or" and insert "consequential or incidental provision"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 225A to Lords Amendment No. 225. I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 16.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 225A to Lords Amendment No. 225.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Enterprise Bill

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Commons Amendments in Lieu of Lords Amendments to which the Commons Insist on their Disagreement and Commons Further Amendment in Lieu of a Commons Amendment Not Insisted Upon
	[The page and line refer to HL Bill 92 as first printed for the Lords.]
	LORDS AMENDMENT: 1Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "corporate" insert "with both a chairman and a chief executive"
	LORDS REASON: The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 1 but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
	1D Page 192, line 1, at end insert—
	"4A(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consulting the chairman, appoint a person (who may, subject to sub-paragraph (2), also be a member of the OFT) to act as chief executive of the OFT on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may think appropriate.
	(2) A person appointed as chief executive after the end of the transitional period may not at the same time be chairman.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2) "the transitional period" means the period of two years beginning with the day on which this paragraph comes into force."
	1E Page 192, line 3, after "such" insert "other"

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1D and 1E in lieu thereof.
	We have always been clear that the Bill allowed the OFT to create a separate post of chief executive if it wished to do so. Last week, my honourable friend the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets and I reassured both this House and the other place that we envisaged that the arrangements at the top of the OFT would be reviewed when John Vickers retires in 2005, so that consideration would be given at the time to whether a separation of the roles of chairman and chief executive would then be desirable.
	However, given the strong concerns expressed by this House that the OFT should definitely have a chief executive, Amendments Nos. 1D and 1E proposed by the Commons in lieu would make express provision for such a post on the face of the Bill. The amendments also provide for a transitional period of two years, during which time a combined chairman and chief executive of the OFT could be appointed.
	The OFT's particular circumstances have been critical to our decision not to separate the role of chairman and chief executive between two different persons at the present time. We are conscious that the OFT is about to enter a period of substantial change as a result of this Bill and we want to ensure that there is an important degree of continuity to lead the OFT through it. We also want to honour the commitment made to John Vickers when he was appointed Director-General of Fair Trading.
	For these reasons, we remain of the view that the OFT should not separate the roles of chairman and chief executive immediately. The transitional provision ensures that the commitments that were given to John Vickers are honoured and it will assist the OFT.
	Noble Lords will also be aware that in creating the new statutory authority the Bill provides for a significant depersonalisation of competition and consumer regulation. As I have said previously, we expect the OFT to have a majority of non-executive members. A two-year transition period during which a combined chairman and chief executive may be appointed therefore seems to be sensible.
	I now turn to Commons Amendment No. 2C in lieu. As I have said previously, and as my honourable friend the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets has said in the other place, the Government are happy to accept the principle that the OFT should have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance in its affairs.
	However, we believe that it is necessary to amend Lords Amendment No. 2 to ensure that the OFT only has to have regard to the principle of good corporate governance which may be reasonably regarded as being applicable to it, and to ensure at the same time that the OFT must also have regard to other relevant general guidance concerning the governance of public bodies.
	The previous Commons amendment, Amendment No. 2A which was designed to achieve this, was modelled on a similar provision in the Office of Communications Act 2002. We have listened to the opinions expressed by this House, which favoured instead an amendment modelled on the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Commons Amendment No. 2C is therefore based on that Act, which includes a provision to have regard to the principles of corporate governance that may be reasonably regarded as applicable to the authority. We have added to that model a reference to having regard to guidance aimed at public bodies. That is because the OFT will be a government body and must take proper account of guidance, rules and procedures for such bodies—for example, Treasury rules on public accounting.
	In contrast, the Financial Services Authority is a private law body: a company limited by guarantee on which statutory functions are conferred. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provision must therefore be amended, as Amendment No. 2C achieves, to be fully appropriate to the OFT. Amendment No. 2C reflects the will of the House that the OFT should have regard to the principles of good corporate governance with a provision modelled on the Financial Services and Markets Act. We have changed the provision only where necessary to ensure that it is fully appropriate to the OFT.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1D and 1E in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thank the Government for their proposed solution, which we accept. Our intention was always to provide for the longer term. We accept the need for a transitional period, following which there will now be a chairman and separate chief executive of the newly created Office of Fair Trading. That will enable the present director-general, John Vickers, to complete his contractual term in accordance with the arrangements agreed with Ministers. We wish him well.
	However, there is continuing and increasing concern about how best to regulate the regulators. I hope that the new structure, combined with a clear commitment to the principles of good corporate governance, represents the right way forward not only for the Office of Fair Trading but for other, similar public bodies.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, although only Amendment No. 1 was moved, the Minister spoke also to Amendment No. 2; so perhaps it is appropriate for me to say a word or two in response. We are extremely happy that the Government have been prepared to make their amendment FiSMA-compliant.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:LORDS AMENDMENT
	2 Page 1, line 8, at end insert— "(4) In managing its affairs the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
	:TITLE3:COMMONS AMENDMENT
	The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
	2A Line 2, leave out from "OFT" to end of line 3 and insert "shall have regard—
	(a) to such general guidance concerning the management of the affairs of public bodies as the OFT considers appropriate;
	(b) subject to any such guidance and only to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as applicable in relation to a statutory corporation, to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
	:TITLE3:LORDS REASON
	The Lords disagreed to Commons Amendment No. 2A to Lords Amendment No. 2 for the following reason—
	2B Because the original Lords amendment adequately provided for the application of the principles of good corporate governance to the OFT.
	:TITLE3:COMMONS FURTHER AMENDMENT IN LIEU
	The Commons do not insist on their Amendment No. 2A to which the Lords have disagreed, but proposed the following further amendment to Lords Amendment No. 2 in lieu thereof—
	2C Line 2, leave out from "OFT" to end of line 3 and insert "shall have regard, in addition to any relevant general guidance as to the governance of public bodies, to such generally accepted principles of good corporate governance as it is reasonable to regard as applicable to the OFT."

Lord Kingsland: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2C to Lords Amendment No. 2.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2C to Lords Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	:TITLE3:LORDS AMENDMENTS
	176 Schedule 1, page 191, line 5, after "chairman," insert "a chief executive," The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	176C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	177 Page 191, line 7, after "chairman" insert "and the chief executive" The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	177C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	178 Page 191, line 10, after "chairman" insert ", the chief executive," The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	178C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	179 Page 191, line 12, after "chairman" insert ", the chief executive" The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	179C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	180 Page 191, line 14, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive," The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	180C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	181 Page 191, line 16, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive" The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	181C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	182 Page 191, line 21, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive" The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	182C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	183 Page 191, line 22, leave out "either" and insert "any" The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	183C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	184 Page 191, line 23, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive" The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	184C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	185 Page 191, line 29, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive," The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	185C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.
	186 Page 191, line 33, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive" The Lords insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason—
	186C Because it is appropriate to make provision for two roles for a Chairman and a Chief Executive which should be performed by two people.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 176 to 186 but propose Amendments Nos. 1D and 1E in lieu thereof.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 176 to 186, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 176A to 186A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 176 to 186, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered176A to 186A.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.